Animal Health Functions: Devolution to Wales

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they have made in preparing to devolve further functions on agriculture and rural affairs from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the National Assembly for Wales.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, agriculture and rural affairs are already largely devolved matters. In the light of the foot and mouth outbreak the Government are in discussion with the Welsh Assembly Executive on the case for further devolution of animal health and welfare functions to the Assembly.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister and welcome his response. While we know that infection of animals knows no boundaries, does the Minister agree that as a result of the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic experience indicates that more decision-making powers by the National Assembly of Wales could have shortened the length of the outbreak in Wales through greater deployment of local knowledge and input, as it did in Scotland? Does he also agree that there is a need to devolve some DEFRA veterinary functions to Wales in order to make animal disease control more effective?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not accept the matter as the noble Lord put it. There were questions of administrative responsibility, and possibly therefore legislative power, in relation to secondary legislation which needed clarifying. By and large the DEFRA administration, the State Veterinary Service and the Welsh authorities acted quite well together during that period. It was a very difficult period for all concerned. So I am not sure that a change of function would have altered the time taken to deal with the outbreak. Certainly, it raised questions.
	The one point I make is that the State Veterinary Service will continue to be a GB function. It still is in Scotland, despite the further degree of devolution there is in Scotland.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, we welcome the concessions proposed by the Government in relation to the Animal Health Bill. Is the noble Lord aware of the intense dissatisfaction among farmers with the 20-day rule? DEFRA is indeed being blamed for its inflexibility by the Assembly Ministers in Wales. Is it not possible to bring the review forward from the new year, because the confusion and hardship are bringing the rule itself into disrepute?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised that I am aware of a significant degree of disgruntlement with the rule in Wales and in certain other parts of the country. Nevertheless, the rule was introduced on the soundest veterinary and scientific advice. We have modified it significantly, in part due to the representations of the farming community and in part due to points raised by the Welsh authorities, so that during this very difficult breeding season there are relaxations in the rule.
	Nevertheless, there is still concern that the rule interferes with the normal process, but then the normal process did actually spread the disease rather rapidly. Whatever happens, we shall not return to a situation where there is no movement regime—as prior to 2001. How far we can relax the present regime in time for the spring movements is under consideration. The assessment should be available at the turn of the year in time for that.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a clear impression in Wales and in the UK generally, I think, that the foot and mouth disease was dealt with more effectively and efficiently in Scotland than it was in Wales. That was due largely to much greater use of local knowledge and local decision making. Is there any reason why the Welsh Assembly should not have the same powers in that regard as the Scottish Parliament?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, without unravelling the whole devolution settlement, the answer is, "Yes there is." The Scottish Parliament has the power of primary legislation in this field. The changes I was talking about do not reopen the devolution settlement in relation to giving the Welsh Assembly primary legislation in this one area. What the noble Lord suggests would open a much broader issue which I am not prepared to go into now. In relation to the practical application of administration and where the power should lie on that, I am very willing to look at the possibility of the Welsh Assembly taking on further powers which would then help to deploy that local knowledge.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether timber growers in Wales suffer from massive cheap imports and from the closure of local sawmills in the same way that we in England find it almost impossible to sell many grades of timber?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is a question on animal health; I am not sure how we got on to timber. The issue relates to animal health, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, made clear. However, in relation to timber—which I am prepared to answer—the situation is clearly similar in England and Wales. It is not clear to me that any change in function—and the Welsh Assembly has a serious role here—would help the Welsh timber industry any more than the English timber industry. We both face the same international competitive problem which has its domestic knock-on effects on the viability of sawmills. But I do not think that devolution has much to do with that.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, reverting to the Question, while of course a further case for devolution can and no doubt will be made, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the handling of the outbreak of foot and mouth in Wales by the agriculture Minister, by the veterinary service that he sorted out and indeed by the National Assembly, was seen to be extremely successful? Whatever the case for further devolution, the present arrangements have worked extremely well.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, by and large that is true, but there is some question as to who took responsibility at any given time. There were times when Welsh Ministers took political responsibility. Administrative responsibility rested with DEFRA. There was some difficulty with that arrangement. Certainly, all the authorities worked extremely well together.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Question imply that Wales can pursue a different programme from England in Europe, thus receiving advantages and disadvantages separate from those in England?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, one would have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, what the Question implies. The constitutional position is certainly not that Wales could have a different relationship with European regulations than that of the rest of the United Kingdom—in the area of animal health or any other. While we may want to achieve a degree of flexibility in the application of those rules, the rules will be the same.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the existence of no power of primary legislation makes administrative devolution to Wales so difficult in this respect?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is not what I said. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who asked why we could not have the same powers as Scotland, I said that that would reopen the settlement, because Scotland has primary legislative powers. Provided that we work out the detail and reach consensus, it is certainly possible to alter the administrative arrangements under the present settlement. We are engaged in discussion on that with the Welsh authorities.

Bermuda

Lord Waddington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether a constitutional conference will be held before any amendment to the Bermuda constitution is made following the report of the Constituency Boundaries Commission.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there are no plans at present for a constitutional conference. The Government have the matter under consideration and no options have been ruled out at this stage.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but has not the boundary commission recommended important changes, including a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament and a change from two-member to single-member constituencies, using powers given to it by a change in the constitution brought about by Order in Council? Surely, before its recommendations are implemented wholly or in part by another Order in Council, bringing about another change in the constitution, there should be a constitutional conference. That would be in accordance with precedent and would quell the fears of those who feel that an unfortunate precedent would be set if there were no constitutional conference. In future, when more important proposals are in the offing, such a precedent might then be used to deny a constitutional conference.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who I know has a long, important association with Bermuda. As I said in my Answer, no options have been ruled out at this stage, so it would be premature to consider an Order in Council, for instance, at this stage.
	I remind the House that we are at the second stage of a two-stage process deliberately put into effect by the Government precisely because of the concern expressed by the noble Lord. As he will know, the first stage was to set up and task the boundary commission. Under the second stage, which we are now in, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will read the boundary commission's report; in consultation with legal advisers and other Ministers, he will read the report of the 10-hour debate that has just taken place in the House of Assembly in Bermuda; and, considering the advice of the Governor of Bermuda, will then take a course of action.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was in Bermuda earlier this year, when concern was expressed on all sides—political and non-political—about the possibility that there would not be a constitutional conference?

Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, I was aware that the noble Baroness had been to Bermuda, and know of her long and keen association with Bermuda. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, concern has been expressed from various quarters about change to the constitution bringing about both the new number of constituencies and constituency boundary changes. Although, as I said, our minds remain open on constitutional conferences, referendums and many other matters raised by noble Lords, we want to proceed cautiously, with the fullest consultation. Because of the interest that she takes in the matter, the noble Baroness will know that there has been a great deal of consultation with the population of Bermuda during the whole process.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords—

Lord Avebury: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that it must be the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am most grateful. Is the Minister aware that a substantial body of opinion in Bermuda claims that the changes now being sought are fundamental, and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said, precedent has always been that a constitutional conference be held to consider such matters? How do the Government intend to decide between the various options available? Will due weight be given to the representations that, as the noble Baroness will acknowledge, have been made by organisations holding that point of view?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we will give due weight to all the representations that have been made from all quarters. The noble Lord mentioned a precedent. He will, perhaps, know that on only two of the six previous occasions on which there has been constitutional change in Bermuda was a constitutional conference called. In that sense, there is no precedent. However, we rule nothing out and nothing in.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his willingness to concede. We are both much too ready to give way to each other. I will not begin to compete with either of my noble friends in their expertise and knowledge about the territory of Bermuda.
	In several answers, the noble Baroness has valiantly presented the fact that no option has been ruled out and that minds are still open. Would it not make sense for the Secretary of State to be more forthcoming? It is clear that there is continuing anxiety in a territory with a long political history that is of some economic importance. It would make sense to concede the constitutional conference that has been requested.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I have had the opportunity to read the correspondence between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and Ministers. I know that he takes a keen interest in the matter.
	It would be premature for the Foreign Secretary to make a decision before he had officially received the report of the boundary commission, the official advice of the Governor of Bermuda and the transcript of the 10-hour debate in the Parliament in Bermuda. There has been a great deal of concern, as reflected in questions from noble Lords in all parts of the House this afternoon, but there has also been, in some quarters, a great deal of enthusiasm for boundary change, in the narrow sense in which we are discussing it.
	Some people in Bermuda feel that change would bring about fairer representation of voter numbers. For instance, each constituency would have approximately 1,100 people per elected MP, rather than the previous uneven distribution. Proposed constituency boundary lines would be more reflective of the population's distribution than those based on the historic parish divisions. So, concern has been expressed, but there has also been enthusiasm for the proposals.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we must move on to the Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. He has eagerly anticipated it for the past five years.

Firearms Licensing

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the central register of persons who have applied for or have been granted a shotgun or firearm certificate, as required by Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which came into force on 1st October 1997, has not yet been established and when they expect to comply with this statutory requirement.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the central register is being designed, developed and implemented on the police national computer by the Police Information Technology Organisation, using its own internal resources. In order to deliver the project, a decision was taken to seek external expertise to provide interfaces between existing local firearms systems and the national database. The existing suppliers of those systems were invited to respond to an invitation to tender, but their responses did not provide a satisfactory solution.
	Having reviewed the options, PITO recently issued a non-binding expression of interest for a retender to provide a single firearms licensing management system and to utilise the interface with the PNC. It is unlikely that the register will be operational before summer 2004.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It strikes me that an expression of interest five years after Parliament's decision is rather inadequate. Does the Minister recollect that, in April 2000, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which, in those days, was presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, said:
	"We are appalled that the national database of certificate holders . . . is not yet in immediate prospect . . . We regard this system . . . as absolutely central to the safe and effective operation of the firearms licensing system"?
	I have heard numerous expressions of commitment on the matter from Ministers, including at least three from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, over three years. If the Government are unable, after five years, to produce something required for the national registration of firearms, people's confidence in their ability to tackle crime—let alone terrorism—may wear a little thin.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I feel that I am guilty as charged, but, by way of response, I offer a plea in mitigation. I am aware of the noble Lord's long commitment to the subject and of the excellent reports produced by my noble friend Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, in his time as chair of the committee.
	There is a fundamental desire to get the matter absolutely right—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the history of such matters suggests that that is the right approach. There is an absolute commitment to get the matter right. Work has been steady and has proceeded as one would expect it to do.
	In fairness, work on the subject has had to have regard to the need to develop concurrently a link with the National DNA Database and the criminal records on the PNC. There was also a need to freeze all new applications to allow an essential upgrade of the PNC infrastructure in order to maintain continuity of service to police forces. That important work had to be undertaken. That is an important part of the explanation for a delay that, I agree, is unacceptable.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for his kind reminder of my interest in the matter.
	Is my noble friend aware that, two years ago, the police national computer steering committee told the other place that the database would be up and running in 12 to 15 months? It is not. The Police Information Technology Organisation—son or daughter of the steering committee—has taken the matter no further forward. Do the Government still believe in the high importance of the database? We need a record of everybody who has been granted and has applied for a firearms or shotgun licence. How much public money has been spent so far in making so little progress?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am, of course, most grateful to the noble Lord for his questions; they are unfailingly helpful in this matter.
	The Government are fully committed to ensuring that the system works. As I said, we must ensure that we get it right. It has a high priority, but several other applications on the PNC had to take precedence. I shall mention them because it is important that they should be in the public domain. There was the National DNA Database link, which was delivered to budget in November 2001, within two weeks of schedule; the persistent offenders register, which was also delivered on schedule, in June this year; and the violent and sex offenders register, which was rolled out in the summer and is on target for delivery in 2003. All those things had to come before the firearms certificate database, and we should consider that.
	We must get the priorities right. There is a commitment to the task, and a retendering process is under way. The noble Lord asked about the cost of the procurement exercise to date. So far, £21,000 has been spent on preparing, unsuccessfully, the tender documents.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister not convinced that his department is trying to set this up slightly on the cheap? It does not sound a great deal of money for something which seems to be absolutely crucial. Will he give the House an indication of whether relevant offences under the Act have gone up or down over the period of this unintended five-year trial?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have some statistics on these matters, bur first we are fortunate in this country to have a low rate of armed crime by international standards. It runs at about 0.46 per 100,000 people. There has been an increase in firearms crime over the past few years. I am happy to make available to the noble Lord as much data as I possibly can, but in correspondence rather than going over a lot of statistical data from the Dispatch Box this afternoon.

Nuclear Test Veterans

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they have received from the Nuclear Test Veterans Association regarding compensation.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Nuclear Test Veterans Association has made many representations over a number of years on behalf of its members regarding compensation, although no such representations have been received since 4th June 1998. I understand the Nuclear Test Veterans Association has indicated that it has further new evidence that supports its case, which I invite it to present for independent review.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply about frustrated nuclear test veterans. That is why they have not been writing recently. Do the Government still insist that epidemiological studies show no excess illness or mortality? Is that still the Government's position? Will he confirm that other countries, notably the United States, France, Fiji and New Zealand, have very different schemes and view the problems of nuclear test veterans very differently? Have the Government had discussions with those other governments to see why they are so generous in comparison with ourselves? If they have not had discussions, can some be initiated so that we can start treating our nuclear test veterans in the same way those other countries do?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the House will agree that the country owes its thanks to all those in the Armed Forces who were concerned with the nuclear tests in the 1950s. My noble friend asked about the Government's current attitude. It is the same attitude shared by all governments of all political persuasions over many years. In response to concerns from the nuclear test veterans about their health two independent studies have been carried out on behalf of the MoD by the National Radiological Protection Board in association with the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. The results of those studies were published in 1988 and 1993. They showed that, in general, participation in the test programme has had no detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life, or on their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases. Both reports were reviewed by the British Medical Journal. A further study is being undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board into the incidence of other cancers and other causes of death among test veterans. The results of this study are expected in 2003. I repeat: if there is further new evidence that the veterans association has, we will look at it and we invite it to present it for independent review.
	As far as other countries are concerned, our view is that we have not consulted with them yet. Each country has its own way of looking at this. What we are concerned about is to get this right.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, why is the Ministry of Defence so reluctant to acknowledge illness among the troops? Has the Ministry of Defence ever done a cost-benefit analysis? In my own experience the Gulf veterans' case has cost millions of pounds; millions in medical research; and millions in legal aid. Would it not be much more sensible to say that these men and women are ill and that they should be compensated for that illness and allowed to go and find medical treatments wherever instead of all these—I was going to swear, but I shall not—epidemiological studies which seem to prove nothing?

Lord Bach: My Lords, these are independent studies accepted by peer groups over many, many years. I do not accept that the Ministry of Defence is under an obligation to compensate those who are unfortunate enough to be ill unless that illness is attributable to their service. If it is attributable to their service, we pay them a war pension. I very much dispute, with great respect, the noble Countess's suggestion that we are not generous in this regard.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister says that we should give thanks to the servicemen even though we gave them no health protection during the test. Will he state whether, if the MoD reverses its position in the light of the new study being undertaken, compensation will be due not just to the veterans but also to their children and their grandchildren? Many of the veterans are complaining that their children and even their grandchildren have suffered long-term illnesses due to the veterans' exposure. If this the case, and if the MoD is willing to reverse its position, which it does not seem to be about to do, will compensation be paid to the grandchildren?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the vast majority of British nuclear test veterans whose task was to provide logistic support for the tests were not exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, either deliberately or accidentally. They were mustered into areas which were known to be safe from the effects of the blast heat and any immediate or residual radiation. As regards the allegations about descendants, I refer the noble Lord to the Seventh Report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment which points out, contrary to recent media reporting, that,
	"there is little evidence that the radiation received by survivors of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to cancer in their children".
	Having made those comments, if there is evidence that is in the possession of the veterans association, I ask it again to show it to us and we will consider it.

Mersey Tunnels Bill

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is a purely procedural Motion for carry-over purposes, as is the next Motion on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That this House do agree with the orders made by the Commons set out in their message of 24th October.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

London Development Agency Bill

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Wednesday 6th November and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
	That if the Bill is brought from the House of Commons in the next Session the agent for the Bill deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
	That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to those stages; and
	That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Animal Health Bill

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
	Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Inspection of vehicles]:
	[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Page 9, line 11, at end insert ", excluding personal luggage and bags"

Baroness Byford: My Lords, as the Bill stands, an inspector accompanied by a constable can demand to examine "anything on a vehicle". The aim of such an inspection is to check that the provisions of the Act or of any order made under the Act are being complied with. This we obviously support. But under Clause 8 of the Bill—"Inspection of vehicles"—proposed new Section 65A(1) states:
	"If each of the conditions in subsection (2) is satisfied, an inspector may stop, detain and inspect any vehicle".
	The amendment seeks clarification of that. I understand what "stop" means and what "inspect" means, but can the Minister clarify the use of the word "detain" in this context?
	Subsection (4) of the proposed new section states that a vehicle includes the items listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). I am concerned in particular with paragraph (d), which states,
	"anything on a vehicle",
	and the amendment seeks to insert the words,
	"excluding personal luggage and bags".
	I do not wish the amendment to be taken as providing a way round the provisions in the Bill which will enable anyone to hide infected material and not be caught—that is not the intention of the amendment—but, when driving vehicles, many ladies—I do not know about men—will carry handbags with them. As someone who has suffered heart attacks, I always carry drugs with me. My concern is that as the Bill stands the word "detain"—if it means what I think it means—could lead to my bag, and therefore my medicines, being detained under that particular injunction. That is why I have brought forward the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is suggesting, but, as drafted, the amendment would prevent the stopping and inspection, and therefore the inspector would be unable to look into bags which were in a vehicle. That would be a serious restriction on his powers should it involve someone who was prepared to move around infectious material. I do not think that that is the noble Baroness's intention.
	As to the meaning of "detain", clearly any action to detain a vehicle or anything on it would need to be reasonable and proportionate. The inspector would have to show that he had reasonable cause to assume that there was something infected or potentially infected within, in this case, the handbag. The normal carrying of a handbag would not be affected by these provisions whereas, were the amendment to be carried, there would be a significant inhibition on the inspector's ability to look at what could be infected material.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. There seemed to be a little looseness in this part of the Bill and I was anxious about that. Having heard the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Countess of Mar: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
	"BIOSECURITY
	(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that all persons in her employ or contracted to her Department shall be fully conversant with current biosecurity measures before they carry out any duties on any premises where there are susceptible animals on her behalf.
	(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to advise all livestock keepers of current biosecurity measures in the case of any outbreak of infectious disease specified in the inserted Schedule 2A in section 10 of this Act."

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, this is a relatively simple amendment but none the less a very important one. It is designed to cover some of the points on biosecurity that were discussed at the Committee stage of the Bill.
	Noble Lords will recall that many reports of officials and contractors giving scant regard to biosecurity when passing from farm to farm or when transporting diseased carcasses for disposal came to the fore during the recent foot and mouth disease epidemic. There were also reports of farmers and dealers failing to behave responsibly at its height. I am sure that we would all acknowledge that these failings should never be allowed to recur.
	When there is an outbreak of any infectious disease it should be instinctive to try to prevent that disease spreading. Unfortunately, not every person in charge of farm animals or responsible for dealing with some aspect of the outbreak is equipped with the necessary knowledge. Indeed, during the recent foot and mouth disease epidemic, there was a great deal of conflicting advice as to how the disease was transmitted, under what circumstances animals or their corpses remained infective, which disinfectants were effective, what should be disinfected and so on. It is almost impossible for each and every farmer, dealer and haulier to inform himself or herself of the current scientific practice.
	DEFRA already sends information to all those concerned with livestock on a regular basis. Up-to-date advice and information on biosecurity could easily be provided from the centre. There could then be no excuse for a failure in biosecurity on the basis of ignorance, although I appreciate that, in law, ignorance is no defence. My amendment simply requires the Secretary of State to ensure that all the people I have mentioned are told what is required of them at the time that it is required.
	Amendments Nos. 39A and 39B are grouped with my amendment. I shall speak first to Amendment No. 39A, which follows my amendment by placing a duty upon all people working on or visiting infected premises or designated areas to observe the rules. This, I believe, is reasonable and redresses the balance—the "asymmetry", as my noble friend Lord May put it—between the negligent farmer and the negligent official.
	Amendment No. 39B also imposes a duty on the Minister—although I believe, in the light of the numerous amendments we have had from the Minister, that that Minister should perhaps be the Secretary of State—and creates a new offence. It would also help to create a more even-handed approach.
	I suspect that the Minister may well compare us to children in the playground shouting, "That's not fair". I know that all too often life is not fair. When we have the opportunity, we have a duty to try to make life seem a little fairer. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 39, Amendment No. 39A:
	Line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) It shall be the duty of all persons working on or visiting any infected premises or any designated area to employ current biosecurity measures at all times."

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 39. I do not need to add to what the noble Countess has said and I shall move directly to Amendments Nos. 39A and 39B.
	Chapter 16.1 of the Anderson report states:
	"There were claims that vets and government officials breached biosecurity. DEFRA informed us that they investigated all such claims. In most cases, they were shown to be groundless. However, it seems likely there were some breaches of tight biosecurity by officials and contractors".
	The main point of Amendment No. 39 is that the Government should take responsibility for ensuring that officials and contractors are trained in the use of current biosecurity measures and that the farming community is aware of what those measures comprise. Having gone that far, it seems advisable to state in the Bill that anyone inhabiting, working on or visiting an infected or designated area has a legal duty to use current biosecurity measures at all times. This is what Amendment No. 39A seeks to achieve.
	This may be even more pertinent if the Government accede to pressures to keep rights of way open in any future outbreak. Should they do so, it may be that visits to the countryside will increase as the great British public seek to support it in its time of need. That could be counter-productive, but that is an argument for another day.
	As to Amendment No. 39B, if the Government are unwilling to accept a duty to communicate current biosecurity regimes to all those affected by an outbreak, it is to be hoped that they will accept this amendment. It slightly waters down the specifications in Amendment No. 39, which has been moved by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. Instead of imposing a duty, it requires all those acting in an official capacity to take all reasonable precautions. The wording implies that there could be a defence for failing to observe a strict biosecurity code but specifies the nature of punishment if the defence fails.
	We believe that recommendations 60 and 61 of the Anderson report intend rather more positive action in relation to vets and other officials than is implied in Clause 10, headed "Deliberate infection of animals". During and after the 2001 outbreak, there were clear implications that if farmers failed to maintain adequate biosecurity it was deliberate, but if an official did so, it was due to "pressure of work". If this legislation is to mean anything, it must make it clear that everyone affected by the outbreak of an exotic disease is bound equally by the rules and by their presumptions. I beg to move.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I welcome any provision to strengthen biosecurity on farms. I speak as someone whose area was in the middle of the foot and mouth outbreak. All the local farms were very conscious of the importance of biosecurity. They had gates erected across the end of the roads; no one was allowed in, and hardly anyone was allowed out; children did not go to school; and the post had to be delivered to a box at the end of the road. It would have been very galling indeed had anyone in an official position come on to a farm without taking the proper biosecurity measures. It is very wise to include such a provision in the Bill: it would make doubly certain that this could not happen. During the last outbreak, farmers were very worried that someone might enter a farm not having taken the necessary biosecurity precautions of disinfecting and so on.
	It is right that this proposal should be on the face of the Bill. Anyone employed by the Government, those in local government and the general public should be aware of the seriousness of wandering about on a farm during a foot and mouth crisis. The remarks of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and my noble friend indicate that this is a worthwhile addition to the Bill. Any additions in terms of biosecurity are bound to help in any future outbreak of foot and mouth.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I rise to seek clarification. I should have wished to support Amendment No. 39A for the reasons given, but I do not think that it has been moved.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, the amendment has been moved and I have put it to the House. So we are at the moment debating Amendment No. 39A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 39.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 39. There is no doubt, as my noble friend has said, that during the course of the foot and mouth crisis biosecurity measures were breached on all fronts. I suspect that that was inevitable given the extreme heat of the moment.
	It should be borne in mind that the Minister has made a commitment to reviewing the compensation rates that farmers are likely to receive in future. I do not think that it is any secret that his department's intention is to reduce those rates: I suspect that the rate of payment will depend on the level of biosecurity to which a farmer has adhered. There will be additional sanctions on those farmers who have not adhered to proper biosecurity measures. That being the case, it seems equitable and fair to introduce into the Bill a commitment on all persons employed by the Minister's department to abide by the same levels of biosecurity. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, it is a right balance. For those reasons, I support the amendment.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 39A and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 39B, if I understand the slightly complex procedure.
	I congratulate the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on again bringing this issue before the House. We debated it in some detail in Committee. She used the word "balance". That word has arisen time and again during our consideration of the Bill but it is one with which the Minister does not seem to want to engage. The idea is crucial, particularly in this area. Surely the duty of observing proper biosecurity measures during such outbreaks should be placed on everyone, not merely on those who look after the livestock.
	That said, we welcome the second part of the noble Countess's amendment, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to provide adequate advice. Such a provision is crucial, and we support Amendment No. 39A, as an amendment to it. There are no further arguments to be put forward from these Benches. The arguments are very clear and in my view overwhelming. I hope that the Minister will make some concessions on this issue.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, were it not for the widespread experience of what went on during the epidemic, I do not suppose that anyone would have thought such amendments necessary. Indeed, I should have been rather surprised had they been proposed. However, in the light of that experience, I should find it surprising if the Minister did not in all the circumstances agree that it would be very unreasonable not to accept them.
	The amendments are so obviously needed, and their meaning is absolutely clear. The first merely requires those acting officially to be fully conversant with the biosecurity measures in force. The second states:
	"It shall be the duty of all persons . . . visiting any infected premises or any designated area to employ current biosecurity measures at all times".
	In other words, people must practise what they preach.
	I feel slightly sorry for the Minister. He has had a most ghastly Bill to introduce. He has to sit there and listen to people fulminating against this kind of stuff. Naturally, from time to time, he must look either angry or bored, but never amused. He is doing his best to smile now, but I do not think that he has anything whatever to smile about. I should be extremely surprised if such clearly needed amendments were now rejected. It would be one more instance of the Government saying, loud and clear, that they know better and that everything that goes wrong is someone else's fault. It is not a view that we share on this side of the House.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, this is a very sensible amendment. It is applicable not only to foot and mouth disease, but to all the highly contagious diseases covered by the Bill.
	During the foot and mouth outbreak, many farmers were concerned that they should have the authority to control the movement on and off their premises of those who had been to other premises that might be infected. This amendment would at least provide the owners of premises with some degree of authority to control such movement. These highly contagious viruses are largely transmitted via the movement of humans, either on foot on in vehicles. I strongly support the amendment.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I reassure my noble friend Lord Peyton that he need not waste much sympathy on the Minister. It was, after all, his own idea to introduce the Bill, so any wounds are self-inflicted.
	I support what has been said in this debate, particularly about balance. We should remind ourselves that much of the rural community lost trust in DEFRA during the foot and mouth disease epidemic. If those most affected by the legislation are to accept it, they need to be fully reassured that officials, contractors, vets, the Army and others involved in outbreaks are as conversant and as fully aware of the biosecurity requirements, and subject to the same laws, as farmers will be. I strongly support this group of amendments.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, are right. I feel that the Bill is necessary for the future control of the disease, which is why I sometimes find some of the comments in this House a little misplaced and, at times, irritating. However, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, never ceases to amuse me, even when he is making a serious point. Given comments made in the past few minutes, I shall put on the record that, first, the Bill does not place sole responsibility on farmers. Throughout, it places responsibilities on others involved with livestock. Secondly, regardless of what is on the face of the Bill, it is the responsibility of anyone employed by, or acting on behalf of, DEFRA or other government departments to act within the biosecurity guidelines. Thirdly, the words that the Baroness quoted from the Anderson report are correct; that is to say, the majority of specific claims that officials or contractors were spreading the disease were found to be groundless. Cases in which there was evidence were thoroughly investigated.
	The question is whether these amendments add to those general responsibilities. I recognise the reference to the mistrust of DEFRA and other concerns in the rural community, misplaced though they might be. I do not think that these amendments as drafted will achieve their intended purpose. Amendment No. 39 does not define "current biosecurity measures". Amendment No. 39A does not indicate the appropriate sanction if the provision is contravened. It is inappropriate to create an offence related to biosecurity that is targeted solely at officials; it must be a general offence. I recognise the concern, which has been discussed several times during the Bill's passage, that DEFRA officials do not appear to be subject to the same requirements as others.
	Having criticised the amendments as tabled—they are not enforceable as they stand—I have concluded after some difficulty that the Government should table an amendment on the matter. I propose to table one at Third Reading, and I can outline what it would cover. It would provide for consultation on biosecurity guidance to DEFRA staff and those working with livestock, and for the publication of that guidance. It would then be a requirement that the guidance be in place, otherwise DEFRA staff could not exercise their functions under the Act. That guidance would need to be kept up to date and maintained. As with other codes of practice, the Act would have to refer specifically to that code of practice so that it would be enforceable.
	Failure to comply with the guidance would not, of itself, lead to criminal or civil liability, but the guidance would be admissible in any court proceedings against DEFRA officials, those acting on its behalf, or others in breach of the code of practice. That is more in line with what happens in respect of other codes. It would refer specifically to what is meant by biosecurity regulations and would then provide a remedy by its admissibility in court cases against officials or others.
	I appreciate that it is awkward for the House to consider the matter when I have not yet tabled the amendment. I seek the indulgence of the House to take at face value my commitment to table an amendment at Third Reading. The difficulty is that if we pass this batch of amendments, I cannot proceed at Third Reading. It would be up to another place to amend Amendment No. 39. I hope that the House will give me the benefit of the doubt in this respect. I undertake to come forward as rapidly as possible with an amendment before next Monday.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that commitment. Everyone around the House takes him as an honourable man; we always do. We accept his word that he will table an amendment at Third Reading. We have had to drag him to the Dispatch Box over weeks to get this done. I do not know what his department is doing. The matter should have been handled weeks ago. It was an obvious issue to be addressed. It was raised at Second Reading and consistently during the passage of the Bill. It puts the Minister in a very difficult position. He should not have to apologise for something that should have been done weeks ago. If my words add to the strength of the amendment that the Minister brings back, I hope that I have given power to his elbow because we have been coping with an unacceptable situation throughout the passage of the Bill. I accept the Minister's commitment to it; I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 39A.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that Amendment No. 39A be withdrawn?

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is very unusual for one to approach the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, with a reprimand. Unfortunately, on Report, after the Minister has sat down—and he clearly had done—and the mover of the amendment has begged leave to withdraw it, the noble Lord cannot ask the Minister a question.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to explain one thing to the noble Baroness, who was explaining a lot to me. It is quite a well known practice for Ministers, when they have sat down, to be told that they have not done so, and for something else to be added.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that Amendment No. 39A be withdrawn?

Amendment No. 39A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 39, by leave, withdrawn.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I express my profound gratitude to the Minister for coming this far to meet us, albeit a little late, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said. Will he undertake to consult us when drafting the amendment and not send us a letter at the very last minute to say what he has done. That would be much appreciated, and at this late stage it would help to get it right. If given that undertaking, I would be very willing to withdraw Amendment No. 39.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, am I allowed to speak now? I do not want a reprimand from my noble friend Lady Farrington. I think I can give an undertaking as far as is feasible. We are only talking about between now and Monday. I shall endeavour to get it to the noble Baroness and others who have spoken in the debate.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I should briefly point out that I am a noble Countess. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 39.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 39B not moved.]
	Clause 10 [Deliberate infection of animals]:
	[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 40A:
	Page 10, leave out line 5.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 40B, C and D. The amendments are all part of a single argument that the Bill sets too high a minimum punishment for failing to observe full biosecurity routines. Your Lordships may think it strange that I put that forward, but we need to look at the 1981 Act and the proposals in the Bill. If anyone were caught deliberately not doing what they should do, I would be the first to say that they were in the wrong. If noble Lords will bear with me, I shall explain where I am coming from.
	We are not talking about people who intend to spread infection. We are concerned with those who fail to do what they ought to do for any one of a number of reasons connected with human nature. It is possible to conjure up a number of hypothetical questions or situations in which farmers or officials might break the rules for reasons that are acceptable to them, but not to a court. Here is one example. Anderson put the issue well on page 74 of his report:
	"Many people sustained extreme working patterns, often 12 or more hours a day seven days a week for long periods. They absorbed a great deal of emotion from farmers and others who were in considerable distress".
	Long hours of work cause fatigue and so too does prolonged worry and grief. Anyone—a farmer or an official—tired out by the strain of the situation may move on to autopilot in carrying out routine tasks. Unfortunately, moves and actions that have become automatic will not always encompass new actions demanded by a fresh set of circumstances.
	New Section 28A(1) inserted by Clause 10(1) states:
	"A person commits an offence if . . . he knowingly does anything which causes . . . an animal to be infected".
	New Section 28B then lays down the punishments on conviction of an offence. Our amendments would lower the minimum sentences. There is no need for the option of disqualification from keeping any animals when there is the ability to specify whatever animals the court wishes.
	We are concerned that some of those caught by the provision may well be farmers reliant for their livelihood on the keeping of animals. We therefore feel that it should be possible to apply to the court at intervals of less than a year to have the ban lifted. In Committee I was rightly taken apart by one or two Members who did not share that view. Any livestock farmer banned from keeping animals loses his job and, by the nature of agricultural cycles, risks being unable to restart for much longer than a year unless he can apply within that time.
	We are also concerned that a farm is not like a normal home. It is quite likely that junior members of the family will start small with one or two animals of their own. Moves currently afoot elsewhere will stop any person under 16 owning an animal. This means that many farming children will look after animals that are still officially the property of the farmer. This could apply to other animals such as dogs, cats and horses just as it does to sheep, cattle and pigs.
	Having thought about the issue since Committee, we do not think it right that a farmer's children should be made to suffer in such circumstances for a lapse in biosecurity by a parent. Nor do we think it right that a wife or husband should be unable to continue with farming because their spouse, the joint owner of the livestock, may have been banned.
	The 1981 Act makes clear that "an animal" is anything, other than a human, that the Minister decides. I can get my papers and come back with the reference. It was originally argued in Committee that the provision would apply only to infected animals, but under the 1981 Act the Minister has the right to decide that it applies to any animal other than the two I have specified. That is only a small point, but it is why I beg to move the amendment.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am glad to follow my noble friend. At col. 1315 on the first day of Report, a week ago today, I raised a problem that seemed to me to occur with the provision in the Bill that covered anybody on the premises of a farm who appears to the inspector to have charge of animals on the premises. I made something of certain situations that might occur. I think I mentioned dogs and fish, but the point could perfectly well be extended to cats and horses as well as a number of other animals.
	I was shot down by the Minister, who said that,
	"we were working on the basis of the Animal Health Act 1981 in which animals are defined as animals being susceptible to the disease. That does not include horses, fish or dogs".—[Official Report, 22/10/02; col. 1316.]
	Since then, my attention has been drawn to Section 87(2) of the Animal Health Act 1981, which says:
	"The Ministers may by order for all or any of the purposes of this Act extend the definition of 'animals' in subsection (1) above so that it shall for those or any of those purposes comprise—
	(a) any kind of mammal except man; and (b) any kind of four-footed beast which is not a mammal". We need clarification on what the noble Lord has in mind when he talks about animals. The response that he gave a week ago seemed clearly—although I accept probably inadvertently—not to conform strictly with the possibilities of the Animal Health Act 1981. While we are talking about disease, I must point out to the Minister that Section 88(2) of the 1981 Act says:
	"The Ministers may by order for all or any of the purposes of this Act extend the definition of 'disease' in subsection (1) above so that it shall for those or any of those purposes comprise any other disease of animals".
	The Minister tries to tell us that we are dealing with only certain types of animals or certain types of disease, but the parent Act clearly allows the Minister of the day to include and embrace any sort of animal under the zoological definition of animal, as well as any disease known to veterinary science. We are entitled to a definition from the Minister of exactly what is the Government's understanding of "animal", which is the issue at the centre of the lead amendment.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister about animals owned by children, which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned, and specifically about goats. As a child in the war I owned goats and I milked them. They were not in the noble Baroness's list.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I support the creation of a better definition of pet because we need to define as accurately as possible the thing to which we are referring.
	I should also like some clarification of the six-month period. Anyone who knowingly and deliberately seeks to infect animals clearly deserves a summary sentence. However, there may be extenuating circumstances which result in a marginal decision by the court. During the most recent outbreak, for example, some people living on one farm worked on another farm, as they did almost every day of their working lives, and they were not properly cognisant of the fact that they should not have been travelling. Although such circumstances may be considered by the court, it is also important to recognise that those who keep animals depend on the breeding cycle. A one-year disqualification could preclude them from operating their farms for at least three years, whereas a six-month exclusion might limit the period in which stock cannot be produced to 18 months.

Lord Carter: My Lords, we should remember who we are talking about: these are not people who have accidentally been caught up in the effects of the disease. As proposed new Section 28A(1) states:
	"A person commits an offence if without lawful authority or excuse . . . he knowingly does anything which causes or is intended to cause an animal to be infected with a disease".
	I cannot think of anything that would make a farmer angrier than the thought that a neighbour had deliberately infected his animals with disease.
	Throughout our discussion of the Bill, there has been real and understandable concern about the farmers affected by these provisions. However, we must also remember the tens of thousands of farmers whom the department intends to protect by these actions. We should be thinking about them, too. Do we want to be seen to be falling over backwards to be lenient to those who deliberately infect animals with disease? We are talking about those sorts of people. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has given various examples, but, if she reads the Bill, I think that she will see that the courts will have the power to vary an order to leave out pets if necessary. Nevertheless, we should remember that these people, if convicted, are guilty of the cruellest and possibly most serious offence imaginable to farmers. Why should we appear to fall over backwards to be lenient to them?

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, for once I find myself in total concurrence with the noble Lord, Lord Carter; perhaps he is pleased to hear it. As he said, we are dealing with people who have committed the offence of deliberately infecting animals. As far as I am concerned, they do not deserve to keep animals.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carter and to the noble Countess, Lady Mar. Amendment No. 40A seeks to ensure that a disqualification from keeping or dealing in animals, following a conviction for deliberate infection of a disease, does not apply to "any" animals. As my noble friend Lord Whitty pointed out in Committee, and as noble Lords have recognised, as matters stand, "animals" are defined in the Animal Health Act 1981—which this legislation amends—as cattle, sheep, goats, swine and other ruminants, and so do not include animals that are most likely to be kept as domestic pets such as cats and dogs. Any amendment to the definition in the 1981 Act could be made only by order. Section 87 of the 1981 Act and the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order 1983 also are covered by that. I hope that that offers some reassurance to noble Lords.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, raised the issue of other diseases. The disease control orders define "animals" as "susceptible animals" to those diseases. The provision,
	"(a) any animals, or
	(b) any animals of a specified kind",
	is based on the corresponding precedent in the Protection of Animals (Amendment) 1954 Act, subject to the definition of "animal". The courts would still have the discretion to specify to which kinds of animals, within the definition of "animals", a disqualification would apply. The courts would make a decision based on the circumstances, taking all relevant factors into account.
	Therefore, if one of the many individuals who keep sheep or pigs as pets were to be convicted of deliberate infection, the courts would have the discretion to include only specified kinds of animals—for example, animals kept for a commercial purpose—thereby not preventing someone from keeping a farm animal as a pet in future. I think that that was the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. However, we believe that it is desirable to keep the blanket exclusion so that the courts retain the power to disqualify an owner from keeping or dealing in any animal if the offence is deemed severe enough to warrant this. I am sure, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar said, that all noble Lords would want to keep that as one of the range of options available to the courts.
	Amendment No. 40B would allow earlier application—by an individual disqualified from keeping animals—to reduce the period of disqualification, whereas Amendment No. 40C would allow more frequent subsequent applications. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said in Committee, we cannot see any good reason to do that. The current arrangements effectively allow one application for review of the disqualification per year, and that ought to be sufficient. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, raised this issue. We believe that disqualification from keeping or dealing in animals is a very severe sentence, imposed only as a result of the extremely serious offence of deliberate infection. It is entirely reasonable that such a sentence should be reviewed only annually. Notwithstanding the extra burden the amendment would place on the courts, these disqualification provisions are in line with similar legislation.
	Amendment No. 40D would have the effect of allowing a farmer who had been disqualified from keeping or dealing in animals due to a conviction for deliberate infection to continue to have joint custody or control of animals. This amendment significantly weakens the deterrent to deliberate infection. Disqualification from keeping or dealing in animals is a very severe sentence, imposed only as a result of the very serious offence of deliberate infection. I am sure that noble Lords who cast their mind back to the tragedy of the foot and mouth disease outbreak will agree that deliberate infection demands very severe action. Disqualification will be imposed only as a result of such action, and it would be wholly inappropriate to allow an individual convicted of this offence to continue to be involved in the control of animals.
	Amendment No. 40D could enable an individual to continue to manage or have control over animals—including potentially on their own farm—following a conviction as long as they did not have sole custody or control of animals. That is unacceptable to the Government, as I hope, on reflection, it is to your Lordships. I am sure that it is also unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of those keeping animals, all of whom would be appalled by people committing this offence. For those reasons, the Government feel it would be inappropriate to accept these amendments.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I restate what I said in Committee; namely, that we, too, are concerned that deliberate infection should be sat upon. But, like my noble friend Lord Jopling, I am not clear what animals are covered by the Bill. However, the noble Baroness has kindly gone through the matter carefully and I shall read Hansard carefully. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 40B to 40D not moved.]
	Clause 11 [Penalties for certain summary offences]:
	[Amendments Nos. 40E and 40F not moved.]
	Clause 12 [Prosecutions: time limit]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 40G:
	Page 11, line 36, leave out "conclusive" and insert "substantive"

Baroness Byford: My Lords, a certificate by the prosecutor as to the date on which the evidence came to his knowledge is conclusive evidence of that fact. The date in question is,
	"the day on which evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify the proceedings comes to his knowledge".
	As I read it, the net effect of all this is that the prosecution has the right to decide when it has sufficient evidence and it then self-certifies the date on which that position was reached. However, the self-certified date may not be challenged; in other words, it is conclusive.
	What is to stop the DEFRA legal team from assembling the evidence, sorting out the court dates and then, perhaps weeks later, passing that evidence to the lady or gentleman who will present it in court and who will certify conclusively the date on which the handover took place?
	It should surely be possible to enter an appeal against a court hearing on the grounds that the evidence was all there weeks before the certified date and that the prosecution should be dropped because the six month limit has been broken. We do not feel that such a challenge should be undertaken lightly, hence our proposed substitution of the word "substantive".
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, kindly wrote to me, following my questions on this topic in Committee, and assured me that the Crown Prosecution Service would not be involved in prosecutions brought under the Animal Health Act 2002. He stated that it was most likely to be DEFRA legal personnel who would self-certify and prosecute. That may be reassuring to some but I wonder whether part of the outcome of the promised review by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, of the work of DEFRA may be the transfer of specialist duties to departments or agencies that in future may be set up to carry them out.
	We have been assured time and again that unnecessary wording is to be eschewed when drafting legislation. What is the purpose behind a clause which sets a time limit and then qualifies it in such a way as to make it meaningless, to say nothing of unchallengeable? Will the Minister explain why, having set a three year prosecution limit, this further six month provision has been added? I beg to move.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I support everything that my noble friend said. I seriously wonder what was in the mind of the Government when they inserted the word "conclusive". Does not the word "conclusive" mean that the Government are not prepared to accept the possibility that valid evidence to the contrary might be in existence? This is a deliberate attempt to shut out the truth—so it would appear to me.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the amendment proposes to substitute the word "substantive" for "conclusive". It does not concern who carries out the prosecution, the time-scale or the other matters that the noble Baroness raised, most of which I believe I covered in my letter.
	As I stated in Committee and in my letter, certification by a prosecutor of the date on which evidence was brought is the normal, well precedented procedure. It is still the case that if the court was uneasy for whatever reason about the declaration of certification, and believed that it had been made in bad faith, it would be able to consider the evidence behind that, irrespective of whether or not it had been deemed conclusive proof. In other words, if there were sufficient doubts, the court could re-open the matter. Any decision to prosecute would be made in accordance with the code of Crown prosecutors. The purpose of that code is to ensure that fair and consistent decisions are made with regard to prosecution. As I say, the term "conclusive" is well precedented. There is case law to support the meaning of "conclusive". As I say, a court could re-open a case were subsequent doubts to be raised. However, there is no such precedent for the use of the term "substantive" which is, of itself, a relative term. To substitute the word "substantive" for "conclusive" would open up a whole new range of issues when "conclusive" has operated perfectly satisfactorily in other parallel procedures. Therefore, I do not wish to accept the amendment.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response although, obviously, I am disappointed. I heard what he said. If the word "conclusive" constitutes the normal legal jargon, which I think is what the Minister indicated—he nods his head to confirm that—at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 41 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 13 [Annual review of import controls]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Leave out Clause 13 and insert the following new Clause—
	"REPORT TO PARLIAMENT
	In section 80 of the 1981 Act (annual return to Parliament) in subsection (2) for the word "and" after paragraph (a) there is substituted the following paragraph—
	"(aa) contain such information as the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales (acting jointly) think appropriate as to the measures taken to prevent the introduction of disease into England and Wales through the importation of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 10(1);"."

Lord Whitty: My Lords, this amendment relates to an amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Livsey and Lord Greaves, that was passed in Committee. I stated at the time that the amendment was accepted that its wording would need to be tidied up. The amendment that I have tabled is intended to maintain the intention of the noble Lords' amendment while retaining flexibility as regards the content of the report.
	I appreciate that my amendment looks somewhat different from that of the noble Lords. I have written to them explaining why that is the case. I am advised that it is better to present the amendment in the way that I have done. Indeed, when I asked my advisers to consider whether we needed to alter the amendment, I indicated that if a government amendment was necessary it would have to address, as far as was practically possible, the intentions behind the original amendment in the name of the noble Lords.
	The primary intention of the earlier amendment was for the report to detail the checks taken to detect illegal imports, to provide a risk based analysis and to propose action. It should, therefore, include the following: first, an explanation of the work undertaken to prevent the introduction of disease into Great Britain through the importation of animal products, including information on where responsibilities lie for the enforcement of the rules on imports. Secondly, it should mention the outcome of the checks and inspections carried out, details of what was seized or surrendered, which was imported contrary to the relevant rules, by reference to volume, the nature of such items and where the items were introduced from—sometimes it is not always possible to identify their place of origin—and whether they were destined for personal consumption or commercial consumption. Thirdly, the report should contain an analysis of the results of the checks and inspections, comment on future proposals and further action to be taken with a view to reducing further the risk of disease being imported, indicate why further action is proposed, and refer to the inadequacy or otherwise of existing legislation and proposals for legislative change.
	I believe that the amendment covers those items and those referred to in the noble Lords' amendment. Any differences reflect solely the practicality of reporting on specific issues. I have listed the information that can be practically collected. It meets, I believe, the intent of the noble Lords' amendment.
	I am advised that all the points that I have outlined now and in writing to the noble Lords are covered by the government amendment and that that is the best way to place the requirement for the report in legislation. The drafting is broad and flexible to allow further information to be included in the report should it become available to us. I hope that your Lordships will accept my reassurance that all the items I mentioned would be included in such a report.
	Animal health is a devolved subject in Scotland. We will continue to work closely with each of the devolved administrations to minimise the risk and to reflect any overall concerns relating to Great Britain in the report. I beg to move.

Lord Plumb: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 42, Amendment No. 42A:
	Line 8, after "taken" insert "by government departments and agencies and other public bodies"

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining his amendment. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 43.
	I accept that many countries where foot and mouth has been and is endemic are getting it under control. The efficacy of the vaccine used in many South American countries and elsewhere is improving, but there is no room for complacency. The wording of the Minister's amendment is too complacent.
	No one thinks that the foot and mouth virus invented itself from thin air. It must have come from somewhere. Throughout history we have mostly been able to determine where it has come from. In the previous outbreak 34 years ago, the virus was traced to a specific estancia in South America. It is strange that on this occasion, when it became obvious where the disease came from, we did not take the tough measures that should have been adopted for such an outbreak.
	It is some 20 months since the disease was officially acknowledged. In that time we have been told repeatedly that the European Union does not encourage the checking of meat imports from European Union countries, even if in transit. I note that the report of the European Parliament currently before the Commission recommends tougher measures. Those measures will therefore change and I hope they will be fully acceptable in this country.
	In that time, meat has continued to enter from countries where the disease—and, occasionally, other exotic diseases—is endemic. The Minister gave me the shattering figures some months ago. Over 108,000 tonnes of beef entering this country during the outbreak came from countries where the disease is known to be endemic. I know he will tell me that the regions that it came from are safe. But it is difficult to appreciate that in those regions many wild animals cross and so diseases are difficult to control.
	I turn to illegal imports. I understand that in that time a grand total of two sniffer dogs and a team of handlers have been trained to work the baggage carousels at Heathrow. I suggest that Guide Dogs for the Blind would not be the power that it is had its record been similar.
	The amended import report is therefore unacceptable. The interests lie in imported material rather than home-grown products. It suggests that we can continue as before, whereas it must be in the interests of producers, consumers and taxpayers to take tougher measures. I am sure that many noble Lords read the report on illegal meat imports produced in the other House by a team who gave the matter a great deal of consideration. I hope that the Minister will comment on it in his reply.
	In their original report to Parliament, the Government had included a review of the activities of government departments, the Food Standards Agency, local authorities, the customs union, police authorities and other relevant public agencies. We would like to see those bodies clearly charged in the Bill with the responsibility to prevent the importation of infected meat and foodstuffs. We want to see clarified the fact that there are imports besides drugs and those which cheat the Treasury of tax revenue that are not wanted here, have no right to come in and should be apprehended as quickly as possible by those government agencies responsible for import control.
	We ask the Minister what was wrong with the original amendment to necessitate its truncation. Will he be satisfied with the phyto-sanitary measures being considered under the WTO? That will be a major issue in the WTO recommendations as we move further towards globalisation.
	Amendment No. 43 refers to the preparation in consultation with interested public and private bodies of the annual report referred to last week and mentioned by the Minister in his letter. That would place a requirement for an annual report in the section of the Animal Health Act 1981 dealing with the figures, where expenditure and numbers of animals are shown in tables against diseases and ports of entry.
	We would like to see a fuller report: more descriptive and capable of engendering questions and informing the public. We would prefer to see such a report specified in the Bill in the area to which it relates. The risk assessment needs proper reporting.
	In 1981, when the original Act was passed, the volume of air transport of persons and goods was less than one-third of today's. Figures are available to all noble Lords in the Government's air transport consultation document. The mind boggles when one sees the figures: 60 million people move through Heathrow alone each year. In 1981 in many countries ordinary people did not have the opportunity to come here as they do today, nor indeed did people from here have the opportunity to travel elsewhere. The cost of travel was much higher and wages and salaries were much lower. The danger of importing diseased meat and other foodstuffs was correspondingly lower. There was no need for a clause such as that we suggest.
	However, there is a need now and we propose that it should be in the Bill to amend the relevant section of the 1981 Act. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I wish to discuss Amendments Nos. 42 and 42A. Amendment No. 42, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would delete Clause 13, which forms a substantive part of the Bill as it is currently drafted. The substance of our amendment on imports now forms that clause. In Committee, there was support for that amendment from all quarters of the Chamber. I thank the Minister sincerely because on that occasion he agreed to the amendment and it was rightly added to the Bill. The new amendment—Amendment No. 42—rightly involves a report to Parliament containing,
	"such information as the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales . . . think appropriate".
	The words "think appropriate" do not appear to be appropriate on this occasion. I am obviously glad that the National Assembly for Wales is included in the provision. It is intended to prevent,
	"the introduction of disease into England and Wales through . . . the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 10(1)",
	of the 1981 Act. In that Act, "things" are specified as,
	"animals and carcasses . . . carcasses of poultry and eggs; and . . . other things, whether animate or inanimate",
	that appear to be able to transmit disease. That section also mentions provisions made with respect to imports. It also refers to,
	"vessels, boats, aircraft and vehicles",
	and to,
	"persons and animals and other things which have been . . . in contact with imports".
	Those provisions failed in 2001 because of a lack of enforcement and co-ordination. We all know what happened.
	The amendment that we tabled in Committee and which now stands in the Bill means that the clause is up to date. It refers to all of the relevant bodies, including the Food Standards Agency, the police, customs, local authorities and others; those specified bodies are responsible for enforcing import controls.
	Proposed new subsection (1)(b) of the clause states that the report will,
	"identify the nature, origin and quantity of . . . animal products".
	The provision is very specific. Paragraph (c) states that the report will assess order-making and paragraph (d) states that it will,
	"assess the effectiveness of any action taken . . . under section 10".
	Section 10 goes hand in hand with the amendment that we tabled in Committee and which now stands in the Bill. Finally, paragraph (e) refers to,
	"further action . . . on the basis of advice . . . by . . . scientific advisers",
	and to risk assessments to reduce disease and importation. In short, the clause spells everything out; it is a catch-all provision. The world, as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, has moved on since 1981. Illegal food is introduced in many different ways; for example, in sandwiches, containers and holdalls.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
	"It may be for the benefit of the Committee if I make it clear that, as has already been said, I am prepared to accept the amendment. Some marginal tidying up may be needed, but I accept the principle of what the noble Lord says".—[Official Report, 7/10/02; col. 41.]
	My interpretation of "marginal" and that of the noble Lord's department are two vastly different things. I do not blame the noble Lord because I believe that those comments were made in good faith. I expect that some undercover things have been going on in the mean time.
	Will the Minister rely entirely on the failed import control system in the 1981 Act? As was demonstrated in 2001, it is the biggest loophole in terms of keeping animal disease out of this country. To be fair, I believe that the Minister has been nobbled. He agreed in good faith in Committee that our amendment was all right, and I thank him for that. I do not believe that he should be blamed for what happened; I blame his department for the proposal to leave out Clause 13 from the Bill. That proposal is not a minor drafting change; it is sabotage. Why is it sabotage? Because of the lack of import controls and because co-ordination between government departments does not currently properly exist. Amendment No. 42 gives no guarantee and involves inadequate enforcement.
	In view of those inadequacies, we have a trade-off between an inadequate import control system and the enforcement of a 20-day rule on the farming community. We know that a risk assessment is taking place; that is a very good thing. However, that assessment has been the cause of some delay and it could be used in certain circumstances as a limp excuse, although I do not believe that that is necessarily the case.
	I beg to keep Clause 13 in the Bill. If there is a vote, I urge noble Lords to vote to keep Clause 13 and to vote against the government amendment because Clause 13 received support from all sides of the Chamber when it was considered on 7th October.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth. As he said, in Committee the amendment received support from all round the Chamber. After all of the Written Questions, Starred Questions and letters to DEFRA, I am amazed that the Minister has proved so insensitive to the views on import controls and the need for total control over the system.
	There has been a great deal of heel-dragging about control at airports. We hear about the lack of advertisements and the lack of questions being asked of people coming into this country. We are aware of comparisons with the approach in the United States, Australia and New Zealand. The government amendment is totally unsatisfactory. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and oppose that of the Minister.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I, too, concur with all that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said. Frankly, any watering down of the original amendment, which is now in Clause 13, would, in the context of this very serious problem, be highly irresponsible.
	I shall try to put into context the question of illegal importation of meats. A video was recently produced by the National Pig Association. Some noble Lords may have seen it but, for those who have not, it is worth quoting some of the examples. First and foremost, it is presumed that the black market in illegal meat imports is now totally out of control. At Heathrow Airport alone, there are apparently 5,500 flights per week but in 2000, only 14 were properly checked. On each occasion, major quantities of illegal food products were found. Those are chilling figures. I am talking about rats, bats, monkeys and pieces of gorilla. As was discussed at the last stage of this Bill, the bushmeat industry has now become a very substantial black market business. Clearly this presents a real risk to both animal and human health.
	Professor Joe Brownley of the Royal Veterinary College says in the video that illegal imports are coming from countries where a range of diseases exists—many of which we do not fully understand. The professor also maintains that a large amount of poultry is coming into this country. My noble friend Lord Plumb talked about the legal importation of meats that are not being properly scrutinised. Poultry is clearly one example. The difficulty of course is that producers in this country are being undercut by people from abroad, who are not subjected to the same level of standards as our producers. Unless imports are properly scrutinised, the prospect of diseases coming in is obviously enhanced enormously.
	It is not just a question of imports. There are British ports where large amounts of illegal meat are brought in through containers. Clive Lawrence, chief executive of Ceil Logistics—a company that specialises in handling food imports—has called for the Government to introduce one agency. He maintains that there are far too many Government agencies at the moment, responsibilities are split between them and there is a high degree of overlapping. He has also called for proper biosecurity surveillance equipment to be installed. To the best of my knowledge, no such equipment exists in this country. He claims that security at Heathrow has been relaxed in recent months and that unapproved carriers are being used to move animal products in open-top vehicles on open roads. He describes the situation as a smugglers charter, with a real risk of spreading potentially lethal human and animal diseases.
	As I understand it, a six-man team and two sniffer dogs were scheduled to take up positions at Heathrow by the beginning of September. To the best of my knowledge—the Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—they have not as yet arrived. We are only talking about two sniffer dogs. I am bound to ask whether two sniffer dogs will actually be able to cope with an average of 219,178 bags that arrive at Heathrow each day.
	We clearly have a very serious situation indeed. I understand the Minister's commitment to getting this right. He has said so before and I do not doubt him in any way. But we are far from achieving even a reasonable situation. We have a crisis that needs to be addressed. Quite frankly, if Clause 13 as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is not on the face on the Bill and we do not have an annual report of the substance that Clause 13 produces, we are selling ourselves short on a very serious issue. Going around the country and talking to farmers as I do, the question of importation is to them the most important issue that needs to be dealt with. I hope that we do not compromise on Clause 13. I believe that it should remain as an integral part of the Bill.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I would like briefly to support and associate myself with what has been said about the Government's unease or inability to do anything effective about import controls.
	I am sure that what the noble Baroness has to say is very interesting but even if this has already been said, I hope that the Minister will pay some attention to the fact that there is real anxiety and upset that the Government have so far not even attempted to do anything effective about import controls.
	I would particularly ask the Minister what there is about import controls that other countries can manage and we cannot. Before one goes into the United States, Australia or other places, one has to certify that one is not carrying certain foodstuffs. As far as I can see, we make absolutely not attempt to do that at all.
	I accept that convention in your Lordships' House requires that when Ministers try to do their best, those on the other side of the Chamber allow the emission of a sort of gaseous gratitude to ooze across in the direction of Ministers. I hope that the Minister is not rejecting my offer of some gaseous gratitude oozing across to him because I am afraid that that is all that he is going to get.
	The second thing that I am concerned about is the amendment. Just now the Minister argued with great eloquence that conclusive did not always mean conclusive—it meant what it was always taken to mean. I did not understand that. I was not quite clever enough to follow him. If that really is the practice, it is little short of terrifying to me that we should now be asked to approve an amendment that says
	"contain such information as the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales (acting jointly) think appropriate as to the measures taken to prevent the introduction of disease into England and Wales".
	I would hate that kind of verbiage to become incorporated as a regular feature of future Bills that come before your Lordships, but that is what the Minister is threatening us with this afternoon. Just in passing, I draw your Lordships' attention to the event that the draftsman obviously has in mind of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales all sitting down jointly—it must be jointly—and deliberating as to what the statement would be. That seems to me an unlikely and unbusinesslike way of going about things. I hope that your Lordships will not accept this really useless piece of verbiage, which in no way can be taken to be a fulfilment of what the Government have promised.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister a question. We have heard about meat coming in. What exactly is the procedure if illegal meat is found? Is it sent off to a laboratory where any disease is detected? A most extraordinary number of strange tropical diseases is now emerging.
	The other matter that I just want to mention concerns the dogs. I have spoken about this before. I was told firmly by the Minister that two dogs were to be used for a pilot scheme. A dog's concentration span is 20 minutes. Therefore, to use two dogs would be just impossibly small. We would need about 200. There are beautifully—perhaps that is the wrong word—expertly trained dogs, which are used for finding dead or missing people. They could be used to find this illegal meat at airports. They are used here and I have met some of them. Perhaps the Minister would let us know—because it is our right to know—what is being done about testing the meat which is found.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I have spoken on many occasions in this House about the lamentable security in this country as regards preventing the importation of highly contagious diseases—especially those mentioned in the schedules to the Bill. Reference has been made to the United States, where, when one enters the country, at least one is asked to make a declaration that one is not bringing in meat or meat products. In this country, nothing is said to individual passengers informing them that that is not permitted. It seems, and has always seemed, to me that it is no wonder that highly contagious diseases enter this country. With our lamentable security arrangements, it is a wonder that it does not occur more often.
	I want to say a few words in defence of sniffer dogs. Yes, there are two at present, but I correct the noble Baroness in that the work cannot be done by any sniffer dog. Dogs must be trained specifically to detect meat or meat products. Such training takes time and, following it, the dogs are highly efficient. I agree that two is probably an insufficient number but, with due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not believe that we need 200. However, the dogs are highly efficient and, as some noble Lords may know, they are used effectively in New Zealand to detect the import of meat and meat products. Therefore, we need to beef up any means which are used to prevent disease entering this country. That is important for the biosecurity of our national herds and flocks and, indeed, of all the animals in this country. We need a strong system that will prevent disease entities coming in. I believe that the original clause would achieve that.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I remind him that Heathrow is not the only airport. We also need to bear in mind Manchester, Birmingham and all the other airports. If the noble Lord does his sums, he may realise that 200 dogs are better than two.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I accept that point.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I echo the question raised by my noble friend Lord Plumb: what was wrong with the original clause in the Bill? Why does it need amendment? When the noble Lord explained why his department had seen fit to change it, I did not understand what was better about the amendment that we are considering as opposed to the clause as it stands in the Bill. Like the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I am at a loss to understand the thinking in the department.
	After so many questions, letters, Starred Questions and debates, the department is still using words such as,
	"contain such information as the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales . . . think appropriate".
	It is exactly that type of phraseology that sends out alarm bells to those who will be affected by the Bill. Ultimately, in order to instil some confidence if the Bill is to be enacted, we should retain the original clause. I believed that it had been accepted by the Minister in Committee and I think that it should remain in the Bill. It is a very good clause and I do not believe that the amendment improves on it. It certainly weakens it and is sabotage.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, a number of substantive points have been made about the nature of import controls and about what needs to be done and what is under consideration. I agree, at least in part, with many of those points. The question of how to strengthen the import control regime has largely led to the Government conducting this thorough risk assessment. It is why we allocated significant additional resources to checks and controls; it is why we implemented the pilot scheme to see whether sniffer dogs can operate in a system with a high volume of passenger throughput; and, to address the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, it is why we asked the Cabinet Office to engage in a detailed examination of whether we need to change the jurisdiction of the various authorities involved in that. We take the matter seriously.
	However, the point at issue in this amendment is the nature of a report which is required irrespective of the precise import regime at any given time. Neither my amendment nor the earlier amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, alters the nature of the import control measures. I accept, as I have done frequently, the need to follow through and strengthen those. However, here we are discussing the nature of a report.
	I believe that the items specified in the noble Lord's original amendment, which is now Clause 13, need to be covered in the report. Some of them are easier to deliver than others, but the amendment that we have tabled would be more flexible. It would allow the Government to report on other aspects of import control, including proposed changes in the regime, and it would therefore enable the House to consider the situation in the round. However, if Clause 13 stands as a result of the amendment agreed to at the earlier stage, its prescriptive nature would limit the area covered by the report.
	I could have added some other items and made marginal changes, which is what I thought I was doing when we discussed this matter in Committee. However, I am strongly advised that the best way to ensure flexibility and breadth in the report is to table an amendment in the form now before your Lordships. Therefore, we are seeking a broader and more flexible report which will probably cover, at least at the points where the issues are live, a number of the matters raised in this debate.
	I do not understand Amendment No. 42A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. He may not wish to see my amendment at all but, in so far as his amendment applies to my amendment, it would severely limit the effects of my amendment. It would restrict the report to the activities of government agencies, whereas, as has been one of the problems in this area, we need to know what other people are doing and, in particular, we need to know what the shippers, airlines and airport authorities, which are not government agencies, are doing. Therefore, I do not consider the noble Lord's amendment to be an improvement on mine. I believe that my amendment would broaden the impact of the amendment tabled in Committee and accepted, at least in its principles, in good faith by me at that time.
	I recognise the strength of feeling in the House about this matter. But, for the sake of having a rounded report, which, after all, is an annual event and which I imagine will certainly be the subject of debate in your Lordships' House year after year until noble Lords are satisfied with the degree and effectiveness of the import controls, I believe that we need a broader report, as required under my amendment.
	Therefore, I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment or alter it or to revert to what was a very good but inadequate amendment agreed in Committee. I commend Amendment No. 42 to the House.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, which, frankly, I do not believe adequately covered many of the points raised. I rather liked the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, reminding the Minister of his comments a week ago when he talked about marginal tidying-up. In my opinion, marginal tidying-up needs to be strengthened and not weakened. I fear that the amendment which we are now considering and which replaces the amendment that I believe we could have supported means almost a deletion rather than a strengthening of many of the points put so well to the Minister and to the House during this debate.
	There are many other issues upon which I do not wish to spend time, although they are extremely important. My noble friend Lady Masham raised the issue of meat testing. We need to know how the latter is dealt with when such imports are detected by sniffer dogs. I have seen sniffer dogs at work, and know how effective they can be. However, as the noble Baroness rightly said, there is a limit to the amount of time they can work, so there needs to be an adequate pack of dogs to enable the work to be dealt with throughout the country. I hope, therefore, that the current test will prove to all concerned that this is one way, as has been found in New Zealand and in other countries, of trying to control the import of products that can lead to the trouble with which we have been faced during the past year.
	In his reply the Minister said that his amendment would make the whole position more flexible. I do not believe that flexibility is needed; the process needs strengthening. The lack of enforcement must be made clear. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said, co-ordination is most important. My amendment refers to the agencies that should be responsible for such matters. Surely they could find out what the shippers are doing as regards what is being imported into the country. They should have the responsibility to make contact with the various people involved. Frankly, they are the people who should be made responsible for dealing with the problem through co-ordination. I wish, therefore, to test the opinion of the House.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, it may be of assistance to the House if I remind your Lordships that the Question I am about to put pertains solely to Amendment No. 42A. Once that has been disposed of, I shall then put the Question regarding Amendment No. 42. The Question, therefore, is that Amendment No. 42A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 42, be agreed to?

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 42A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 182; Not-Contents, 129.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 42, as amended by Amendment No. 42A, be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary "Not-Content". The "Not-Contents", have it.
	Amendment negatived.

[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 44:
	After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
	"NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
	Before section 15 of the 1981 Act (requirements on certain persons relating to animals infected with disease) there is inserted the following section—
	"14A NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
	(1) The appropriate authority must prepare a document (the national contingency plan) indicating the arrangements the authority intends to put in place for the purpose of dealing with any occurrence of—
	(a) foot-and-mouth disease;
	(b) such other disease as the authority by order specifies.
	(2) After preparing a draft of the national contingency plan the appropriate authority—
	(a) must send a copy of the draft to such persons and organisations as the authority thinks are representative of those having an interest in the arrangements;
	(b) must consider any representations made to the authority about the draft by such persons and organisations;
	(c) may amend the draft accordingly.
	(3) After the appropriate authority has proceeded under subsection (2) the authority must—
	(a) lay the plan before Parliament (unless subsection (9) applies);
	(b) publish it in such manner as the authority thinks likely to bring it to the attention of persons who may be affected by the arrangements.
	(4) The appropriate authority must from time to time (but not less frequently than at intervals of one year) review the plan and if the authority thinks it appropriate revise the plan.
	(5) Subsections (2) and (3) apply to a revision of the plan as they apply to its preparation.
	(6) The power to make an order must be exercised by statutory instrument.
	(7) The instrument is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (unless subsection (9) applies).
	(8) The appropriate authority is—
	(a) the Secretary of State in relation to England;
	(b) the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales acting jointly in relation to Wales (except for the purposes of subsection (1)(b));
	(c) the National Assembly for Wales in relation to Wales for the purposes of subsection (1)(b)
	(9) This subsection applies to a plan prepared in relation to Wales.
	(10) It is immaterial that anything done for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) (except the making of an order under subsection (1)(b)) is done before the passing of the Animal Health Act 2002.""

Lord Whitty: My Lords, Amendment No. 44 deals with the national contingency plan. I indicated at an earlier stage that I accept the argument that the Bill needs a reference to the important national contingency plan, which is central to the recommendations of the two inquiries—the Anderson inquiry and the Royal Society inquiry.
	The latest version of the FMD interim contingency plan was posted on the DEFRA website on 3rd July. That will be updated and a further development of that plan will be established through the mechanisms set out and will follow very much the recommendations of the Royal Society and of the Anderson inquiries. We shall review those plans regularly.
	The development of contingency plans requires, most importantly, the training of staff and practice in implementation of the plans. There was criticism in the reports that we did not have sufficient dry runs of those plans and that we did not consult widely enough. We are addressing both matters.
	The FMD contingency plan applies to the Secretary of State in relation to England and the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales acting jointly in relation to Wales.
	Animal health is devolved in Scotland, although Scotland will also have its contingency plan. We are keeping in close touch with the Scottish administration.
	In pursuance of the new clause I anticipate that the full-scale contingency plan will be in a form suitable for laying before Parliament in the spring of 2003.
	That is the work the Government are engaged in. The purpose of the amendment is to place on the face of the Bill all those requirements—to prepare, to consult, to involve and to test. The plan will be laid before Parliament and must be updated at least annually. Therefore, we directly meet the concerns expressed both in the reports and in the House that while this activity has involved priority and resources, the level of awareness, the level of preparation and the level of understanding of how we would deal with a future outbreak needs to be enhanced. That is why continuous review of the contingency plan is built into this amendment.
	Contingency plans have not previously featured in legislation. Given their importance in our armoury of weapons to fight future disease, their establishment—quite uniquely in this Bill—and report to Parliament is appropriate and is indeed recommended specifically by the Royal Society report. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 44, Amendment No. 44A:
	Line 6, leave out "prepare a document" and insert "make an order"

Lord Greaves: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 44A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44B, 44BA, 44BB, 44C and 44E.
	I start by speaking to Amendments Nos. 44BA and 44BB, which are new issues. Amendment No. 44BA states that as well as sending the consultation draft on the contingency plan to persons and organisations that the Secretary of State thinks he or she ought to send it to, it should be placed on the appropriate authority's website. At the moment that would be DEFRA's website, but that may change in the future.
	The reason is in order to put the matter firmly in the public domain. When consultation documents are sent out to people by the Secretary of State, they get into the public domain. But they get there by accident. Often they are put on the website and so placed in the public domain. So why not state that in this day and age the website is the appropriate place for such vitally important documents to be made available to anyone who wishes to see them formally? That is the purpose of Amendment No. 44BA.
	Amendment No. 44BB is equally important. It provides that, rather than merely taking account of the responses to consultation on the draft made by persons and organisations to whom the Secretary of State has seen fit to send it, the Secretary of State should consider all representations, from whomever they come. That would mean that if any members of your Lordships' House should decide to take part in the consultation, but had not been picked out by the Secretary of State as people to be consulted directly, our representations would nevertheless be considered. It is likely that the Secretary of State would think that we were people whose responses to the consultation should be considered, simply because it would give him an idea of what we might raise later in the House.
	The principle is clear. On an issue such as this, the Secretary of State should have to take account of any citizen of this country who wants to contribute to the discussion. No one should be fobbed off by the Minister's officials simply because he is not listed. That is the purpose of those amendments, which set out important principles for how the Government should undertake public consultation at the beginning of the 21st century.
	The other amendments in the group, including Amendment No. 44A, raise the same point that we debated last week in relation to the slaughter protocol. I still think that I was right then and am right now, but I accept that I lost the argument in your Lordships' House, so it would be a waste of time to repeat it today. I therefore do not intend to press Amendments Nos. 44A to 44E, but I should be most interested in a positive response to Amendments Nos. 44BA and 44BB. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 44 and 44B. The new clause proposed by the Minister is certainly welcome. However, as in our previous debate, we feel that it is not entirely adequate.
	Foot and mouth disease hit us, metaphorically, out of a wet and windy winter sky, without warning. There was a contingency plan. It was inadequate, as was quickly shown. It was too small; it was unrehearsed; it required resources that were unavailable—for example, disinfectant that was effective in 30 seconds rather than 30 minutes.
	We fear that subsection (1) of the new clause promises more of the same. The plan shall exist for foot and mouth, but not for any of the exotic diseases listed in Schedule 2A, unless and until the Secretary of State decrees that that shall be so. DEFRA is concerned with the environment. As such, it cannot possibly be ignorant of climate change, global warming and their possible consequences. It must surely be aware of the warnings from overseas and from United Kingdom experts of faster and further spread of exotic diseases.
	Earlier this year, I hosted a meeting at which specialists on animal tropical diseases told horrific tales about the spread of Blue Tongue, African horse sickness and of the nasty bugs that can now survive in northern climes. They claimed that Blue Tongue is now endemic in New York State. Surely the national contingency plan should cover all the diseases in Schedule 2A, or we may well rename it the "national certainty plan". I have already made representations about the use of the negative resolution procedure in the Bill, and oppose its inclusion in the government amendment, as elsewhere.
	Amendment No. 44B will expand the national plan to include all the diseases in Schedule 2A. It will ensure that all those diseases are studied regularly and steps to prevent their importation into the UK considered, set out in black and white and contained in the national plan. It will also expand the Secretary of State's role to include implementing the national plan in the event of an outbreak of any exotic disease, and monitoring that implementation. The thinking behind those measures is that in 2001, implementation was at least as faulty as the plan.
	I turn again to the Anderson report, which states on page 37:
	"Contingency planning is not just producing a written document. Rather, it is about putting in place the systems, processes and culture to respond effectively to crises".
	On page 70, it states:
	"At the same time, communications from senior management downwards also appeared to have difficulty reaching their target recipients. The message that FMD was an overriding priority did not filter through effectively to the rest of the department. A human resources manager at DEFRA told us that the department had a 'silo mentality' and individual groups and managers not directly involved with the outbreak remained focused on their own targets. There was no incentive for them to release staff to help in the fight against FMD".
	Those are not my words but those of the report so ably compiled by Mr. Anderson.
	I am sure that we all feel that what happened in 2001 must never happen again. We have tabled the amendment to ensure that it will not. The law should lay down the Secretary of State's responsibility to ensure that it does not. Amendment No. 44B adds significantly to the measures proposed by the Minister in Amendment No. 44.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, we have added our names to Amendment No. 44B, which fleshes out the requirements of the national contingency plan—in particular, the need for a three-yearly review, although perhaps that should occur more frequently. That review will address a wide variety of diseases—and strains within those diseases, which is important in the context of the 2001 outbreak. The amendment also provides for steps to prevent incidence, the immediate implementation of a contingency plan at the start of an outbreak and the monitoring thereafter of the plan's implementation. The investigation, recommendation and implementation of vaccination programmes as an option is also important, whether in emergency circumstances or circumstances of permanent control. That is necessary to flesh out the Bill's provisions. The amendment is worthy of our support.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill, I have from time to time mentioned Scotland. The Minister has said that powers are totally devolved under the Scotland Act 1998 and that we must just hope that the Scottish Parliament will legislate. That is just not happening. Agriculture is a United Kingdom issue.
	No one knows better than I, living in the midst of the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease, right on the Border, how crucial it is that England and Scotland should operate together. However, although there has been an inquiry in Scotland, no steps have been taken, so far as I can see, to implement anything approaching the legislation that we are dealing with in this Bill. Judging by the forecast in the newspapers of the legislation to be dealt with between now and next spring, when there will be an election to the Scottish Parliament, there is no room for further legislation on the matter. That means that it will be at least a year before we get any changes in Scotland in the regulation of foot and mouth disease. That is not good enough.
	I would like the Minister to say that he has had some firm assurance from the Scottish Executive that it will implement in legislation similar conditions to those in this Bill designed to prevent another outbreak of foot and mouth disease. It is no use the Minister saying that the Scottish Executive has discussed the matter and will do something about it: we want to know when and how. It is a United Kingdom issue. Anything that happens in Scotland is likely to move over to England and vice versa. We cannot sweep it under the carpet, and the Minister should be franker and tell us what has happened in the discussions with Scotland and when it will implement something relative to this Bill.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I understand that the United Kingdom—as opposed to Scotland, England and Wales—is required by EU legislation to produce a foot and mouth disease contingency plan and that it must be approved by the European Commission. The Minister will tell me whether I am wrong, as it may bring in the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, that the foot and mouth disease plan should relate to the United Kingdom. I understand that, for beef sales, Scotland is not regarded as a separate country. In other words, Scotch beef cannot be sold on the Continent. Perhaps the Minister will clear that up.
	I am pleased to see the proposal that a national contingency plan should be in the Bill. I support all the amendments, particularly those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—Amendments Nos. 44BA and 44BB. It is about time that we had a little more democracy in the consultation. We hear over and over again that the relevant stakeholders have been consulted, but it turns out that, most of the time, that means the NFU. The NFU is not as representative as people might think. It is a good insurance company, but I "hae ma doubts"—as my father used to say—as to how representative it is of the interests of small farmers and others.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the Minister has explained the situation in Scotland and will, perhaps, explain a little more. What about Northern Ireland? It is still part of the United Kingdom.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend Lady Byford. I also support, in general, the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. However, I am puzzled as to why foot and mouth disease has been separated out from other diseases. We are dealing with a wide spectrum, and, although foot and mouth disease is an awful disease—we have experienced that—there are other diseases that are even worse, such as rinderpest, African swine fever or peste des petits ruminants. Such diseases should be on that list. Will the Minister comment on that? Other than that, the amendments are appropriate for what we intend to do.

Lord Carter: My Lords, there could be two weaknesses in Amendment No. 44B. I shall be interested to hear the noble Lords who spoke to the amendment comment on that point later in the debate. At paragraph (a), the amendment refers to,
	"a three-yearly review of the world-wide incidence of each of the diseases listed in Schedule 2A".
	That information is already available internationally in reports from the OIE and so on. We do not have information from countries that do not report and, thus, break the rules. By definition, there is no evidence if the diseases are not reported. The amendment seeks,
	"a three-yearly review of the world-wide incidence"
	which is already available. The things that we need to know we cannot find out; they are not reported.
	My second point relates to paragraph (b), which refers to,
	"the resultant recommendation of steps to be taken in the United Kingdom to prevent the incidence of each disease listed in Schedule 2A".
	Are we going to use the resources of DEFRA and taxpayers' money to show what we are doing to prevent rinderpest and Rift Valley fever? Every disease listed at Schedule 2A is to be reported on, as are the steps taken to prevent it.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will, I think, respond on Amendment No. 44B, and I will be interested to see whether she can answer those points about the waste of taxpayers' money.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that it is in order for me to reply now; the noble Baroness and the noble Lord can speak afterwards.
	I shall answer one or two points of fact. To the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, I say that the intention is to develop a contingency plan for foot and mouth disease that would, in its essence, provide a core that could be extended to other diseases with particular attributes that are slightly different. The core contingency plan would be that developed for foot and mouth disease, and the timetable that I outlined is for the development of that plan.
	I was asked about contingency plans in Scotland and the relationship to EU requirements. It is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government to ensure that a contingency plan exists for the whole of the United Kingdom, but that plan need not be all in one piece. Responsibility for animal health is devolved—completely for Northern Ireland and Scotland and partly for Wales—and it is important that that legislative and administrative framework is reflected in the arrangements that we put in our contingency plans.
	We must work closely with our Scottish colleagues, but they have responsibility for developing the contingency plan in Scotland. Likewise in Northern Ireland, where some degree of cohesion with the Irish Republic on matters such as animal movements is also necessary, there is a responsibility on the Northern Irish authorities—whoever they may be at any given time—to ensure that there is a contingency plan there. As a whole, it is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government to deliver those plans to the European Union. I hope that that explains the position to some extent.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, how can somebody be responsible to Europe for something over which they have no control? The British Government are responsible to Europe for the contingency plan for foot and mouth disease—or whatever it is—but that matter is devolved to Edinburgh. If something is totally devolved, how can Ministers in this Government be responsible for it to somebody else?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are responsible for reporting to the Commission the form of the contingency plans in the United Kingdom. The Commission must examine those plans. We are not responsible for carrying out all the activities set out in the plans because some of those activities are devolved. I know that many of your Lordships do not like it, but that is the nature of devolution.
	We have a responsibility for external purposes to ensure that our commitments to Europe are fulfilled. They are fulfilled by ensuring that all the Administrations in the United Kingdom fulfil their responsibilities. In that context, the United Kingdom must fulfil responsibilities for England and Wales. The noble Earl has a philosophical problem with devolution; he has never come to terms with it. We could go over the matter many times, but we will not take it further now.
	I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I understand where he is coming from and his attempt to tidy up the contingency planning. It already appears on the website, as will any future development. Indeed, most areas of government consultation are on the website. However, if we specify a requirement in this piece of legislation and do not specify one elsewhere, there is an argument for any government department other than DEFRA which wanted to be recalcitrant on the issue to say, "It is not specified in the legislation whereas it is in the Animal Health Act and therefore we do not put it on the website". Means of communication change over time; therefore the best means of communication is the best requirement that is on government. Currently, that requires a website.
	As to who we should listen to, it is open to everyone to write in. It is also open to the Secretary of State to take into account the opinions of people other than those who are specified in the legislation. But the legislation specifies those who are representative of interests involved. If we were also to put on a par those who are not representative of those involved, we might be in some difficulty. If, for example, farming interests were represented through the National Farmers Union or the Farmers Union of Wales, and another group which shall be nameless claimed to speak for farmers, we would be putting it on a par. That is not a sensible way of behaving. The group could write in and put forward its views, some of which might be sensible. However, the group should not be on a par with the representative organisations. There is a danger in the noble Lord's second amendment that that would be the result.
	I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for which Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches indicated support. There are a number of problems with it. My noble friend Lord Carter pointed out that much of the information is already available and therefore it is not an additional requirement on the Secretary of State. However, the second proposed subsection provides that the Secretary of State shall,
	"investigate, recommend and implement vaccination programmes".
	It specifies only vaccination programmes. I have been at pains to point out to the House that any system of dealing with any future outbreak of the disease involves the culling of diseased animals and the option in certain circumstances of culling rather than vaccination. The amendment could be read as indicating that vaccination programmes will always be implemented, not only in emergency control but also for permanent control of such diseases—admittedly in particular circumstances. However, it implies pre-empt routine prophylactic vaccination. As the noble Baroness will know, the Royal Society said that it should be considered more seriously as information and research develops, but it is not currently recommended.
	That may be an exaggerated interpretation of paragraph (b) at the bottom of page 5 of the Marshalled List, but the noble Baroness will accept that the last two phrases are ambiguous and exclude any measure of control other than vaccination. That would not be appropriate to write on the face of the Bill. We need flexibility.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the Minister's interpretation of the distinction he draws between "emergency" in paragraph (a) and "permanent" in paragraph (b) is solely related to subsection (1) to put in place for the purpose of dealing with any occurrence. The only interpretation to be given to this is the distinction between emergency on the one side and any other occurrence on the other. It is a valid distinction and it is the essence of the distinction of my Amendment No. 44CA.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate that continually in the debate the noble Lord is trying to draw a distinction between an outbreak which causes an emergency and other outbreaks. However, if there is an outbreak of any disease in Part 2A in the schedule, it is an emergency.
	Paragraph (b) at the bottom of the page is ambiguous not because it distinguishes the emergency situation but because, as I read it, it relates to a programme in particular circumstances of prophylactic vaccination. It is using vaccination for permanent control. That suggests to me routine vaccination. At the least it is ambiguous. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on Amendments Nos. 44BA and 44BB. I accept that this is a wider issue than simply the Bill. It is a question of how the Government consult on a whole range of issues. However, the argument that, because means of communication change, legislation should never refer to websites is not strong. It would be a brave person who suggested that websites are not going to continue to exist for the foreseeable future. However, I recognise what he says.
	On interests, he says that those who are not representative of the interests involved should not be "on a par" with groups which are recognised as being representative. However, the point made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in relation to the NFU and the recent foot and mouth outbreak is relevant. One has only to talk to farmers in the Pennines and the Lake District to find that many do not believe that the NFU was representative of them. Indeed, many of them are not members of the NFU. That is not to denigrate the NFU in any way; it is to state that the people speaking on behalf of farmers were from wider groups than that one organisation. The noble Countess made the point that I tried to make; that experience of the foot and mouth outbreak indicates that many people wanted to have their views taken into account but, rightly or wrongly, felt that that was difficult. They felt not only that the Government were not listening to them but that there were no proper channels through which they could communicate their views to the Government.
	The Minister may say that that was not the case, but that was what people felt. It seems to me that in a democratic country such as this, the Government in their consultation process should be under a duty to take account of opinions from anybody anywhere. The question of whether a person has a legitimate opinion is, when it comes down to it, for him or her to decide and not for the Government to decide.
	The Minister made a commitment that the contingency plan would be published on the website. I notice that he is nodding from a sedentary position so we have that on the record, which is useful. He also made the commitment that the letter, e-mail or whatever from anyone making representations would at least be opened and read. In reality, that is all one can ask any government to do.
	I want to comment briefly on the Minister's response to Amendment No. 44B. It is the whole argument about balance within the Bill. If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford were present, I am sure that he would make the point much more eloquently.
	The Bill is slaughter, slaughter, slaughter all the way through. Whenever we talk about slaughter and ask why there is no balance with vaccination, the Minister says, "It is not necessary. It is in other legislation. It is in our minds. We do not need to have it written down. The fact is that it is all slaughter in the Bill does not mean that that is necessarily what we are going to go in for". Yet when people try to put vaccination in the Bill, the Minister says, "If we even mention the word 'vaccination' anywhere in the Bill, it will mean that we are being forced to do that and nothing else". He said that the wording of the amendment means that the Government must always implement vaccination. Yet it clearly states:
	"The appropriate authority may investigate, recommend and implement vaccination programmes".
	I should like the wording to be stronger than that, at least as far as concerns investigation. I should like it to be "shall investigate". But it does not even say that; it simply states that the Minister "may investigate, recommend and implement".
	Including those words would bring balance back to the Bill and give those who own and manage livestock more confidence in it. The Minister is overstating the case when he suggests that it means that vaccination will always be implemented. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 44A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 44, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Byford: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 44, Amendment No. 44B:
	Line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) The appropriate authority shall include—
	(a) a three-yearly review of the world-wide incidence of each of the diseases listed in Schedule 2A;
	(b) the resultant recommendation of steps to be taken in the United Kingdom to prevent the incidence of each disease listed in Schedule 2A;
	(c) the incorporation of the steps identified in paragraph (b) into the national contingency plan;
	(d) the implementation of the contingency plan upon the outbreak of any disease;
	(e) the monitoring of the implementation of the contingency plan.
	( ) The appropriate authority may investigate, recommend and implement vaccination programmes—
	(a) for the emergency control of any disease listed in Schedule 2A in any animal species; and
	(b) for the permanent control of all such diseases in animals in particular circumstances."

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have listened very carefully, and with slight disappointment, to the Minister's response to my Amendment No. 44B. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for pointing out that those two little words in my amendment—"may investigate"—do not make a final commitment to vaccination being the only way.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carter, told me that there is already a three-yearly review of the world incidence of disease. I should like to see that incorporated into the Government's national contingency plan. The Minister may be able to confirm that it is there already and that I do not need to worry about it—but I cannot see it there, and it should be. Although I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it should be on the face of the Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carter, then challenged me—in a friendly way, I trust—in relation to my seriousness in wanting to consider each of the diseases listed in Schedule 2A. I think it is important that we do so. He does not believe that it is and he said that it will cost the taxpayer a lot of money. If the Government had used the powers that they had in the first place, they would not have wasted between £3 billion and £5 billion on the recent outbreak. What we are trying to do—what we must do—is to ensure that these matters are in the national contingency plan, which we all agree is important, and on the face of the Bill. I do not know how much it will cost, but it will certainly not cost £5 billion if it helps to keep disease away in the future.
	The Minister will perhaps remember that when I spoke to my amendment I remarked that climate change and exotic diseases are becoming much more prevalent and much nearer to us. I thought that that would have underlined and highlighted the reason for the amendment. Although on this occasion the noble Lord was serious in what he said to me, I reject what he said.
	Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 44 as it is my only chance to speak to that amendment before I finally return to Amendment No. 44B. I should draw the Minister's attention—

Lord Whitty: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves Amendment No. 44B, can she explain her interpretation of paragraph (b) in relation to permanent control?

Baroness Byford: My Lords, it means what it says. The proposed subsection states:
	"The appropriate authority may investigate"—
	it does not say that it has to investigate—
	"recommend and implement".
	I cannot define it more clearly.
	As to Amendment No. 44, the Minister was critical of my including and specifying vaccination in my amendment. I cannot see the word "vaccination" anywhere in Amendment No. 44. I am quite willing to be corrected, but I have read through the amendment many times and "vaccination" does not appear once. I believe that it should. I am not satisfied with the Minister's response. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 44B.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 44B) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 179; Not-Contents, 133.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 44B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 44, agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 44BA to 44C, as amendments to Amendment No. 44, not moved.]

Lord Campbell of Alloway: moved Amendment No. 44CA:
	Leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert—
	"( ) The appropriate authority may only implement the national contingency plan to deal with the occurrence of a state of national emergency but not otherwise by order exercised by statutory instrument on affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament."

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this amendment stands also in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford. In moving it, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 44CB, 44DA and 44DB as consequential, but I shall not deal with them in any detail so as to save time.
	The shape of the Bill has already changed beyond recognition. Account has been taken of these changes in tabling this amendment.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his wide concessions, which met the essence of the argument deployed in Committee on 8th October [at cols. 167 to 175 of the Official Report]. In case it is worrying my noble friend Lord Peyton, this is not a dollop of unctuous ooze; it is a genuine and rare expression of gratitude. For the record, the reference is to Amendment No. 211 in Committee.
	This concession is applied in the Minister's Amendment No. 53. This would be wholly achieved if Amendments Nos. 53B and 53C, as amendments to Amendment No, 53—standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—were to be accepted by the Minister. Amendment No. 53C is crucial as affecting this and all other amendments. It involves the question not only of reasons but of representation, so that there is an opportunity to seek a stay of execution or judicial review. That is the only aspect that has to be further considered in relation to the concession.
	If this position were accepted by the Minister, it would be otiose for me to re-table at Third Reading my Amendment No. 211 in Committee. I am advised that, if those concessions are made, there would be no object in doing so. If they are not made, the amendment will be re-tabled.
	Amendment No. 44CA seeks to ensure that implementation of the national contingency plan may not be had by the executive other than to deal with the occurrence of a state of national emergency; and that Parliament, not the Secretary of State, should decide whether there is or is not a national emergency such as warrants implementation of the plan. In other words, the amendment seeks to retain for Parliament what is essentially the business of Parliament, which would, if so advised, inhibit resort to the provisions of Amendment No. 53C and representation.
	The proposals of this plan are not only welcome; they are essential. They must provide for implementation in a state of national emergency, which is operated by order under a statutory instrument. That could involve the imposition of substantial fines and imprisonment if not complied with. In those circumstances, the power must lie within the control and remit of Parliament, not the Secretary of State in the exercise of his discretion. The use by the Secretary of State of his discretion to implement the plan at any time other than in a national emergency, albeit that the plan was laid 12 months ago and was not annulled by Parliament, affords absolutely no realistic or satisfactory safeguard against error or misuse of the executive power of preventative slaughter to deal with any occurrence in the circumstances of any particular case. That is the essential justification for this amendment. To put it shortly, we have moved away from the business of protest and shock that was manifested during the earlier stages of the Bill. We have entered an irenic domain of constructive discussion.
	In those circumstances, I hope that the object of this amendment, which is to inhibit the proposed delegation of power by Parliament to the Executive to implement a national contingency plan other than in a national emergency for the sake of administrative convenience, will commend itself. That is not acceptable, nor is it within our ordinary concept of the unwritten constitution. I beg to move.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I read the amendment with care and listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said. The wording of the amendment gives it a meaning that is the complete reverse of what the noble Lord intends. As I understand it, the noble Lord intends that if the Government wish to implement the national contingency plan in a national emergency, they will not have to come to Parliament, but that in every other circumstance they will. By any reading of the English language, his amendment seems to say the complete opposite. It says:
	"The appropriate authority may only implement the national contingency plan to deal with the occurrence of a state of national emergency but not otherwise by order exercised by statutory instrument on affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament".
	His wording seems to mean that in a national emergency the Government would have to come to Parliament to have an affirmative resolution passed, which is completely impractical, given the speed required to deal with the national emergency of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, when the Government must exercise their powers within hours.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I must have confused the noble Lord, but I hope not the House. It is perfectly plain that, first, this plan can be exercised only in a national emergency and must be exercised by the Secretary of State with the authority of Parliament. All the other measures in the Bill operate at any other time. It is totally unnecessary to have this plan, other than for use in a national emergency. For the reasons that I have given, it should in those circumstances be for Parliament, and not the Secretary of State, to say that there is a national emergency. I am sorry that I confused the noble Lord.

Lord Carter: My Lords, we can now be clear that the noble Lord proposes that in the event of a national emergency—the outbreak of foot and mouth disease—whether or not Parliament is sitting, an affirmative resolution must be passed by both Houses in a situation where the Government must operate within hours. One of the criticisms of the Government during the last outbreak was that we did not impose immediately a movement order on every animal in the country. If that is what the noble Lord means, he has helped the House by making clear his suggestion, which I think is impractical.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I can help. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, in reading the amendment, has inserted a comma after "emergency" and another after "otherwise". Those commas do not appear on the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, must be very experienced in drafting legal documents. He must know what he is saying; after all, he has been in the business all his life. It is perfectly clear that he is proposing that if there is no emergency, an affirmative instrument is required, and if there is an emergency, it can be dealt with immediately. It looks perfectly straightforward.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, there seems to be some confusion. I read the amendment in the same way as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, did, and I was happy to support it. Perhaps the Minister will comment.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I must confess to being slightly confused. I thought that the noble Lord was proposing that the powers could not be used except in a national emergency, which has to be declared by Parliament. This is a chicken-and-egg problem. As my noble friend Lord Carter indicated, much of the criticism of the Government during the last epidemic was that they did not act instantaneously on receiving confirmation of the disease. As I said to the House previously, had we had to come back to Parliament, we would not have been able to act instantaneously. This House had a report on the day of the confirmation of the outbreak from my noble friend Lady Hayman, but the other place was not sitting on that day.
	If we interpret the amendment strictly, Parliament could not have acted in the timescale that all the inquiries and much of the commentary criticised the Government for failing to work within during the last outbreak. The question of a national emergency is not appropriate in this power. It is an emergency if any of the diseases under Schedule 2A breaks out in this country. The contingency plan is designed to deal with that emergency.
	There may be arguments about what should be in the emergency plan. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has argued for some other safeguards at other points of the Bill. However, that is what it is designed for. There is not a subset of currencies that is pre-national emergency or non-national emergency. It is an emergency when this kind of disease breaks out. The contingency plan is designed to deal as rapidly and as effectively as possible with that. That is what the inquiry suggests we do. Whichever interpretation we put on the wording, the amendment cuts across that. I hope the noble Lord will not pursue it.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have listened to what has been said and waited for what might have been said. We have now reached the stage at which, on the state of the debate as it stands, I have to decide whether there is apparent support for the amendment. It appears to me that there is not, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 44CB to 44E not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 44, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 45:
	After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
	"VETERINARY INVESTIGATION CENTRE NETWORK
	In the 1981 Act the following subsection is inserted after section 5(1) (veterinary services and therapeutic substances)—
	"(1A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the Veterinary Investigation Centre Network and the State Veterinary Service are adequate to deal with future large scale outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.""

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, this is a probing amendment to expose the current state of the veterinary investigation network and to urge the Government to do something constructive about it.
	The amendment will spare the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, because a lot of what I have to say covers actions taken well before his time, but I am very concerned about the present situation.
	On 27th March 2001, when I was in the other place, I tabled a Question to the Under-Secretary of State in what was MAFF, asking him to list the veterinary investigation centres that were closed between 1980 and 1997. The list reads a bit like John Betjeman's poem about the closure of stations during the Beeching era. The same applies to research centres. The reply said that in 1986 the veterinary investigation centres closed were at Cardiff, Chester, Gloucester, Leeds and Moulton, Northampton. In 1991 centres at Bangor, Lincoln and Wye in Kent were closed. In 1993, centres in Cambridge, Norwich and Worcester were closed. During that time, two centres were opened. In 1980 there were 24 veterinary investigation centres in England and Wales and in 1997 there were only 14. There was a net closure of 10 investigation centres. No veterinary investigation centres were closed between 1995 and 2001.
	On 30th March 2001 I asked another question in the other place to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about how many vets were employed by his ministry, running from 1971 to 2001. The answer was that in 1980 there were 580 state veterinary surgeons in the service, but by 1997 there were only 289. That is a reduction of 291 veterinary surgeons over that time. By 2001 there were 220 vets in the field out of a total of 286. The total number of state vets halved during the approximately 20 years that I have referred to.
	I am extremely critical of the decisions that were made to reduce the veterinary investigation centres and the number of vets in the field. That was a negation in protecting UK livestock and animal health. It goes a long way to explain how and why insufficient preventive measures, personnel and veterinary laboratory facilities were available. The situation in England and Wales was inadequate at the start of the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak.
	Of course, there were other factors involved, including changes in farming practice, the activities of dealers and other activities going on at the time. However, the rundown of the State Veterinary Service was a major contributing factor in the initial sluggish response to the 2001 outbreak. The disease could have been controlled far earlier. Will the Minister review the current state of the State Veterinary Service in the light of what I have just said and ensure that it is well resourced and can deal sufficiently with future outbreaks as soon as we know that they are starting?
	Amendment No. 47, tabled by the Conservatives, is also in this group. It mentions the funding of research into the diseases listed in Schedule 2A and the viability of permanent vaccination programmes. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, will address much of that.
	On 20th May 1998, I asked a Question in the other place to the Minister of State—now the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—about the closure of research facilities that MAFF had in place during the 1980s and 1990s. The Answer was very interesting. The list included: 1981, Great House Experimental Husbandry Farm, Rossendale, Lancs; 1989, Rosewarne Experimental Horticulture Station, Camborne, Cornwall; 1989, Lea Valley Experimental Horticultural Station, Hoddesdon, Herts; 1989, Luddington Experimental Horticulture Station near Stratford-upon-Avon; 1989, Liscombe Experimental Husbandry Farm, Dulverton, Devon; 1990, Brogdale Experimental Horticulture Station, Faversham, Kent; 1991, the Cattle Breeding Centre at Shinfield, near Reading, Berkshire. I know from my professional career that the Shinfield centre was an outstanding research station in world terms.
	I also got a list of laboratories closed in the period specified, although some of the work was transferred to other facilities. The research stations where laboratories closed were: Shardlow in Nottingham in 1980; Bangor, north Wales in 1985; Cardiff in 1985; Bristol in 1988; Leeds in 1993; Wye, Kent in 1993; Starcross, near Exeter in 1993; Reading in 1995; Newcastle in 1995; Cambridge in 1995.
	It was a stripping out of the State Veterinary Service. It is no wonder that we cannot respond adequately to disease outbreaks. I hope that noble Lords will agree that I had sufficient foresight to table those Questions four years ago. The closures seem to account for much of our inability to prevent disease and to tackle outbreaks. The culling of the State Veterinary Service and of agricultural research stations has indeed added a whole new dimension to the word culling.
	I also tabled a Question on the number of redundancies in the scientific sector. Although the Question could not be answered, I know for a fact that many of the very capable scientists whom I know personally lost their jobs. I also know that research funding at Pirbright has been reduced over the years. It is no wonder that we are not ready to cope with disease outbreaks when they occur. As we know, during the 2001 outbreak, much of the testing was done at Pirbright, one of the few places where it could have been done. Amendment No. 47 is not my amendment, but I thought that I should provide that background.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 45, on the Veterinary Investigation Centre Network, and I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 47, on research. As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, very clearly said, the amendments would simply prod the Government into making adequate arrangements to deal with future outbreaks. The noble Lord also provided some startling figures on the gradual reduction in the number of centres. Like me, many of your Lordships will be familiar with those well-known centres and with their work. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will accept that we need a review into this issue, to ensure that we are prepared to take action when action is necessary. Although one hopes that it will not be necessary, there have been many developments.
	Since the beginning of the outbreak, there have been persistent reports, which we have all heard, about very odd reactions, and very strange comments have been heavily reported in the press. For example, a picture seems to be emerging of flocks of sheep that are about to lamb being several times more vulnerable than other flocks to foot and mouth disease. There are similar stories about flocks that have been rounded up and vaccinated. We could dwell on such stories all evening, but the truth of those stories needs to be investigated. We need thorough research and not mere anecdote.
	Such a task cannot be left to the private sector. The private sector does much to advance our knowledge and to improve our collective lot, but it is motivated by reports to shareholders and issues such as return on capital. It cannot be expected to devote a great deal of attention to the highly speculative aspects of particular diseases. We therefore believe that the Government must fund research into the aspects of disease control that do not offer financially acceptable prospects of success and in relation to which data access is difficult.
	We also believe that the Government should gather together and review available research into permanent vaccination programmes. That is why we emphasise, as we did last week, the importance of vaccination to live rather than vaccination to slaughter. We must consider much more thoroughly the possibility of vaccination—on a ring basis, of course—in a future outbreak. We routinely protect all sorts of animals against a host of diseases without apparent ill effect to them or to us. As the UK becomes more vulnerable to a range of exotic bugs, it is important that someone looks closely at the means of keeping them under control. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, reminded us very clearly last week, for various reasons, routine vaccination is performed to prevent disease and so that food can be classified as completely safe to the consumer.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 45 and 47. They may be probing amendments, but it is a very important probe.
	This year, I attended a presentation of the tropical veterinary school in Edinburgh. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was going to chair the presentation, but unfortunately she was ill. The presentation was most interesting. It was attended by a senior African veterinary officer who said that the school was their lifeline, and that many veterinarians in Africa had died of HIV/AIDS. The tropical veterinary school in Edinburgh is yet another body that is under threat of closure. If we want to do something useful to support developing countries, one of the most important possibilities would be to train people in this field of veterinary science.
	I was at a DEFRA presentation which I think the Minister also attended. I sat next to a man from DEFRA and I asked him what he felt was the most important aspect of the overall problem of foot and mouth and other diseases, to which he replied, "More research facilities". I feel that the Government must take this issue seriously. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that this is an extremely important issue.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 45. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has given a very detailed account of the loss of VI centres and of personnel in the State Veterinary Service. The losses have occurred over the past decade; they did not happen immediately. The effect has been to reduce our national capacity for surveillance of all types of disease.
	The Veterinary Investigation Centre Network used to be the jewel in the crown of the state service, attracting some of the best people in the veterinary profession. The closure of so many facilities has had various consequences. Farmers wishing to send their animals to a centre, for example, have to contend with much greater distances, with return trips totalling perhaps more than 100 miles. Farmers are not always willing to do that. Farmers may also have to pay for post-mortem examinations, but, farmers being farmers, they may not wish to pay the heavy fees levied upon them.
	In earlier days some remarkably poor decisions were taken. I do not charge the present Government with that. For example, I refer to a veterinary investigation centre that was situated next door to a veterinary school and a public health laboratory. I declare an interest as the dean of the school at the time. Yet despite the close association of those centres, the authorities decided to close down that facility and replace it with one in Bury St Edmunds which was not near any centre of excellence.
	Similarly, the State Veterinary Service has been whittled down to the level indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. Some 200 or more members of that service have disappeared. One cannot maintain a service that is geared up to deal with an emergency situation. It would not be wise to determine the manpower that would be needed to deal with another outbreak of foot and mouth disease and try to maintain that as a standing force. That would not be realistic. We must rely on the private sector of the veterinary profession—I refer to the local veterinary inspector service—to help to deal with serious outbreaks of disease. The Royal Society of Edinburgh made a sensible proposal; namely, to create a corps of territorial reserve officers composed of retired people who have experience of dealing with foot and mouth disease and, indeed, many of the other diseases mentioned in Schedule 2A. The Royal Society of Edinburgh indicated that those people might be paid a small retainer. They would be able to deal with outbreaks of those diseases. They could respond to such outbreaks as necessary but they would not be part of a permanent service.
	The number of personnel in the Veterinary Investigation Service—that is now the Veterinary Laboratories Agency—has decreased. Being an agency, the VLA must generate funds; that is why it has to charge fees for diagnostic and investigation purposes. The number of personnel has been decreased due to a false sense of security. We have not had any serious outbreaks of disease in this country comparable to the foot and mouth outbreak. That has certainly not been the case as regards the diseases mentioned in Schedule 2A. I hope that we never do have such outbreaks but we must be aware that they are not very far away. We cannot compromise our situation by any further reduction in the number of personnel in either the State Veterinary Service or the VLA. Many people in the veterinary profession now realise that we have reached a point where numbers are below the critical level with the result that serious diseases entering the country will not be detected. I very much hope that the Minister will comment positively on that matter and that he will give an assurance that the Government will take it on board.
	As regards Amendment No. 47, research needs to be conducted into the diseases mentioned in Schedule 2A. However, effective vaccines already exist for many of those diseases. We look forward to the global eradication of rinderpest due to a highly effective vaccine. However, were rinderpest to enter this country, we should first slaughter out the infected premises and then use a vaccine. It would be no use trying to vaccinate before that step was taken as rinderpest is a highly contagious disease. Although we need to carry out more work as regards vaccination, we should use that information with a degree of caution and not consider that vaccination is the total answer to the control of some of the diseases listed in Schedule 2A.

Lord Carter: My Lords, the debate on Amendments Nos. 45 and 47 introduces a strong sense of dejà vu. Noble Lords may recall the Barnes report on market led research—the emphasis at that time was on market led research—that was issued in the early 1990s. That research was extremely elegantly described by the Minister at the time—the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington—who said that if farmers want it they will pay for it, but if they will not pay for it they do not want it. I said at the time that the description seemed to me to apply much more to the oldest profession than to agricultural research. However, research was run down, as was the Veterinary Investigation Service, as we have just heard. I am sure that that was a factor in the lack of veterinary resources that were available to cope with the outbreak of disease last year.
	I am rather puzzled by Amendment No. 47 on research which states:
	"The Minister shall fund research into levels of susceptibility to diseases listed in the inserted Schedule 2A . . . experienced within the United Kingdom since 1992".
	I am puzzled why the research is restricted to diseases experienced within the United Kingdom since 1992. If we are concerned about research into the diseases listed in Schedule 2A, I should have thought that we should not be concerned solely with those experienced in the United Kingdom since 1992. However, the provision on vaccination in Amendment No. 47 refers to all the diseases listed in Schedule 2A, not just those experienced within the United Kingdom since 1992. The amendment states:
	"The Minister shall collate research into the viability of permanent vaccination programmes against diseases listed in Schedule 2A".
	That provision presumably applies to the prophylactic use of vaccine and not to the use of vaccine in the event of an outbreak. I am not sure that that is what the movers of the amendment intended to achieve. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I hope that this will be my last intervention relative to Scotland. The Minister has a rather cavalier attitude to Scotland; namely, that everything will be all right on the night and that we do not need to worry what the Scottish Parliament will do and so on. However, as far as I am aware, the State Veterinary Service is still controlled by what was MAFF and is now DEFRA. That means that in the event of an outbreak of foot and mouth in Scotland the front line troops are still controlled by the authorities in London, as was the case in last year's outbreak. One had to phone the nearest office in Ayr in connection with a foot and mouth outbreak in Dumfries. If anyone answered the phone, one's call was diverted to London. Will that still be the case in the future? Will the State Veterinary Service in Scotland be under the control of DEFRA, as appears to be the case in Wales? That takes some of the ground from under the Minister's feet when he said that that was a devolved matter that had nothing to do with him. He said that it should be left to the Scots. However, as far as I can see, the Scots have no intention of introducing legislation on that matter in the next 12 months.

Earl Peel: My Lords, the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, were certainly well made. However, I wish to pick up a point made by my noble friend Lord Soulsby who said—he must be right here—that the costs of maintaining the State Veterinary Service at the level needed to deal with an emergency would be quite impractical. My noble friend suggested that perhaps retired vets could deal with an outbreak in the event of an emergency. However, perhaps my noble friend can explain why vets within the private sector who are still practising could not be brought in. I should have thought that their knowledge would be more up to date and more practical than that of retired vets.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are on Report. Questions could have been put while the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, was speaking, but we cannot enter into a debate. Anyway, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would never forgive me if I allowed the rules to be breached in his absence.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, made some valid points about manning. Many private vets still work for the State Veterinary Service—a point that has been made before. We need to make sure that the leadership in the State Veterinary Service is up to scratch and that they are able to command in a situation that requires a strong, firm, clear commander. That was one of the problems with the recent foot and mouth outbreak.
	I support without exception the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We have been told a great deal about research. I am saddened that we are losing our best scientists—in the recent outbreak, Dr Paul Kitchiner, decided to go to Canada at a crucial moment—because the scientific community has been watered down so much.
	I read an interesting paper the other day describing the politicisation of science. In order to obtain money, scientists have had to become political and to some extent bow to political masters in the type of research they do. They have also become commercialised, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, mentioned. In order to make an income they have to charge for their services. That can blight to some extent the way in which they consider and accept other people's research. That problem also became clear with foot and mouth disease.
	I suspect that one of the reasons Pirbright would not even consider the American testing equipment was because it has some of its own lined up and does not want to lose its commercial edge. An overall review of the progress of our science is needed. The amendments will help to some extent, but we need to consider outside the Bill what we are doing with animal science and indeed human science.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I am a scientist. I have worked on a few problems involving agricultural stations. I also ran the Met Office during a period under the previous regime when the government placed considerable emphasis on economising on government science.
	I want to place the debate in context. Since 1997 there has been a substantial increase in the total research budget in the UK. The way the debate has been going suggests that there has been an accelerating reduction in science. That is not the case. In the past five years there has been a substantial increase in research in universities and in a number of major research centres. There has been a considerable concentration of research in major centres of excellence, such as those to which the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, referred.
	I understand the point that there has been a great reduction in small local centres, some of which were good and some not good, which was the point of the reduction. But many independent observers have pointed out that UK science—as should be the case in all countries—needs to maintain a balance between science in universities and in government institutes so that the science is delivered and the capability is there.
	A more constructive approach would be to request that the Government look to see that there is a proper balance between university research and research carried out in a devolved way in a number of centres. I hope that the Minister will reflect in a more balanced way on the situation but also ask his colleagues in charge of balancing the scientific effort to see whether we are keeping a proper balance between the areas of the science budget. Some of the concerns expressed this evening are obviously well founded.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, these amendments are unusual. They seek to designate to Ministers levels of staffing and the level of research in specific areas. It would be unusual to find any such stipulation in a Bill.
	However, I turn to the merits of the matter. Those noble Lords who have said that over the past 20 or 25 years there has been a substantial reduction in the size of the State Veterinary Service are undoubtedly correct. But that argument needs to modified. For the past 10 years, the number of field vets has not varied greatly.
	In an outbreak, we deal principally with field vets and those we can mobilise into the field. There is not a great deal of point in re-establishing the rather hefty management structure for the State Veterinary Service through the former MAFF regions and elsewhere. Some of the losses in the State Veterinary Service have been people who moved across to the VLA and were at the scientific end of the service so are not lost in gross terms.
	The management of outbreaks is important. The contingency plan will have a unified structure of management of an outbreak. In the early stages of the last outbreak the vets had one management structure, the administration had another and the Army another. Bringing them together would not necessarily mean that a management structure dealing with an outbreak would be composed solely of members of the State Veterinary Service.
	The way the amendments are expressed is also confusing for reasons referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. In an outbreak the point is how many vets can be mobilised into the field, not how many are there to start with. We are looking to develop and finalise the contingency plan with the profession. We need to see how in the event of an outbreak we can mobilise the widespread veterinary resources in the private sector, some of whom work in the public sector on occasion, to deal with an emergency situation.
	It is not possible to employ a level of SVS permanent staff adequate to deal with future large-scale outbreaks. They would not be adequate in any circumstances; one would always need to mobilise more people. Although it is right to draw attention to the importance of the levels of staffing, the way in which the amendment is expressed is not appropriate.
	We are attempting to specify the nature of research. As my noble friend Lord Hunt indicated, if we are talking about government research in total, there has been an expansion in research over the past few years rather than a contraction, as many of the contributions have implied. Parts of the agricultural research budget have indeed reduced over that time. The Royal Society suggests that more is required.
	The amendment is directed to "the Minister", which is anachronistic in that we now talk about the Secretary of State. But even if "the Minister" implies DEFRA, much of the state-funded research does not occur within DEFRA. Pirbright, for example, is a BBSRC institute, as are other institutes in this area.
	We jointly fund other veterinary research, for example, with the Wellcome Foundation and there is also private sector research. The totality of research does not have a single budget. We accept that more research is needed in a number of areas, including those referred to in this debate. Whether it would be carried out by DEFRA institutions or by DEFRA contract is a second order issue.
	Additionally, this is a European problem. There is no point reinventing the wheel in Britain, Germany or Switzerland—Switzerland is not in the EU but it is in the same area. There are centres of excellence in all those countries. We need to develop a European approach to maximise the amount of high-quality research into animal disease. Some such research is delivered outside this country and comes into this country. We have centres of excellence in this country whose research facilities we need to maximise. However, we should not do so in the proposed way. It will not be necessary for British researchers to do research into all the diseases listed in the schedule. It would be sensible to share that out under the European framework rather than to follow the letter of the amendment. I recognise the concerns that lie behind the amendment but it does not propose a sensible way to deliver what the noble Lord envisages as the outcome.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I shall deal fairly rapidly with a number of points.
	I stated that there are currently approximately 220 field vets out of a total of 286 in DEFRA. I am not necessarily harking back to the levels of the 1980s but it would be prudent to increase the State Veterinary Service to a level that could cope with more normal types of outbreak. I do not refer to the "mega" outbreak that we had in 2001, when we had to import, I believe, more than 1,000 vets from countries all over the world to assist. I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about increases in budgets and research. That has indeed occurred. I do not wish to give the impression that we denigrate what the Government are doing in that regard.
	On research, there was a great move to what was known as neo-market research in the 1980s in particular. It was orientated totally towards the market forces that were operating and fundamental research tended to go by the board. The balance has been disturbed.
	The Minister's comments on private research were all very good. We acknowledge that such research has gone on but it is orientated very much towards the profit motive. That is understandable; after all, the companies are in the business for profit. However, it is important to have fundamental research on, for example, different strains of foot and mouth disease, and only state research can carry that out.
	The Government must surely take on board the need for a balance between all those factors. I believe that the Minister acknowledged that something must be done in this area if we are not to be caught out again by a catastrophe such as that of 2001. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 46:
	After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
	"TRANSFER OF POWERS FOR ANIMAL DISEASE PREVENTION TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES
	(1) The powers in the Animal Health Act 1981 (c. 22) for animal disease prevention and control relating to Wales shall be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales.
	(2) State veterinary staff in Wales and their functions relating to animal disease prevention and control shall be accountable to the National Assembly for Wales.
	(3) The National Assembly for Wales shall publish a strategy for animal disease prevention and control in Wales."

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, this amendment refers to the situation involving the Welsh Assembly. I note that other amendments have been modified since the previous Marshalled List; they state that action will be taken jointly between DEFRA—specifically the Secretary of State—and the National Assembly for Wales. That positive development addresses some of the problems experienced during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Wales in 2001. As already stated, there is no doubting the fact that the Minister responsible for agriculture in Wales at the time, Carwyn Jones, did a very good job liaising with DEFRA.
	There were, however, a number of pinch points that, frankly, were not acceptable. I mention in passing—I should not really do so only in passing—that the proposal to bury and burn at the Mynydd Epynt site in my former constituency was ill-conceived, particularly because it had to be enforced by the West Midlands police force, among others, to ensure that it was carried out. That caused all sorts of mayhem and there were meetings in the middle of the night between ourselves, the Assembly and DEFRA staff to try to sort things out. Clearly, that can be done in a much more satisfactory manner. I acknowledge the Minister's answer to my question earlier this afternoon about what was happening in relation to the transfer of powers, particularly in relation to veterinary matters, to the National Assembly for Wales. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we agree that it is appropriate that animal health issues should be further devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. However, this amendment is unnecessary as many functions under the Animal Health Act 1981 have already been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales by way of the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999. There are ongoing discussions regarding further transfer of functions to the National Assembly for Wales. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions and to impose, by way of this Bill, functions on the National Assembly for Wales that may not even reflect the position that the Assembly itself wishes to reach.
	I hope the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is reassured by my response and that he agrees that, because this is an area that will be subject to change in the not-too-distant future, it would be inappropriate to press the amendment.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Although I am an ardent devolutionist and would like to go much further, I am also well aware that politics is the art of the possible. I acknowledge that disease knows no borders and that a professional service that has a good reputation is already in place. We look forward to effective co-operation between Wales and DEFRA in future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Plumb: moved Amendment No. 47:
	After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
	"RESEARCH
	( ) The Minister shall fund research into levels of susceptibility to diseases listed in the inserted Schedule 2A in section 10 of this Act, experienced within the United Kingdom since 1992, as between species and within each one according to the circumstances of the affected animals.
	( ) The Minister shall collate research into the viability of permanent vaccination programmes against diseases listed in Schedule 2A."

Lord Plumb: My Lords, the Minister gave a fairly full response to this amendment. He made it clear that this matter could be discussed outside the Bill, and I accept that. How one might deal with a situation if it arose in future is a matter of concern to all of us. I thank those who spoke in support of the amendment.
	My noble friend Lord Soulsby speaks with great authority on research past, present and future, as he does on investigations. He made the important point that while we have to rely to some extent on the private sector, the Royal Society of Edinburgh advocated the use of what I call territorial reserves. That is an excellent idea. The noble Lord chaired a gathering a little while ago of about 40 of us, all of whom were involved in a former outbreak 30 or 40 years ago. It was amazing during that discussion how we managed to shed the years and remember very clearly what happened. So there are people who could be available to assist and who, I am sure, would be prepared to assist if needed.
	The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carter—I happen to agree entirely with what he said about looking at research as a whole and not from a particular year—is that the wording arises from Schedule 2A and Section 10 of the Act. Therefore, I think that the information that we had related to 1992 on. I see the noble Lord nodding his head, so obviously he approves and agrees with that point.
	So I beg leave to withdraw this amendment—

Noble Lords: Not moved.

Lord Plumb: Or not move it, my Lords, in the knowledge—

Lord Ampthill: My Lords, as the noble Lord has spoken at some length to the amendment, I must invite him to proceed in moving it in case anyone wishes to reply to what he has had to say. He can of course later withdraw it.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I am happy to beg to move.

Lord Ampthill: My Lords, amendment proposed, to insert the new clause as printed in the Marshalled List.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 14 [Commencement]:
	[Amendment No. 47A not moved.]
	Schedule [Scrapie]:

The Countess of Mar: moved Amendment No. 48:
	Page 13, line 32, at end insert—
	"36BA Identification of phenotypic characteristics of genetically susceptible sheep
	The Secretary of State must take into account the phenotypic characteristics of any sheep before he applies a restriction notice under section 36C."

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I spoke briefly about this amendment last Tuesday. I mentioned my concerns about all the scrapie section of this Bill. This amendment puts into the Bill the final recommendation of the European Commission's scientific steering committee in its scientific opinion on the policy of breeding and genotyping made at its meeting in July 1999. It states:
	"Before embarking on large scale breeding of sheep towards maximal resistant genotypes, according to the different breeds involved, consideration should be given to phenotypic characteristics".
	We have seen what has happened in the case of Holstein cattle in this country. The gene pool of these ubiquitous black and white dairy cows has steadily been diminished because a small number of genetically similar bulls have stood at AI over a period of years. The result is that the cows carry genes for heavy milk production—which is of course what they are designed for—but unfortunately they also carry genes that shorten their lives, give poor fertility and confer certain mobility weaknesses. They might also have an increased susceptibility to BSE.
	Cattle breeders are also finding that when crossed with beef bulls, these cows' calves do not have a suitable confirmation for good beef production—unlike their close and much sturdier relation, the British Friesian.
	I do understand concerns about TSEs and about CJD in particular but perhaps we should look at environmental factors in light of the failure of 10 or more years of science to demonstrate the infective theories. I am fearful that by narrowing the sheep genetic pool before we know the long-term effects, we will be damaging irreversibly the genetic advantages that have been bred into the national flock over many centuries. We must not forget that the Lord Chancellor sits on the Woolsack as a sign that sheep were the building blocks of this nation's wealth over many years.
	I would like to quote from Richard Lutwyche, spokesman for the Rare Breeds Survival Trust:
	"It really is wrong for the Government to pursue such a definitive policy with a lack of science, especially as it could lead to the loss of our indigenous breeds".
	I am not just talking about rare breeds here. We have many indigenous breeds that are not rare. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Countess. She has spelt out very clearly that it is not just rare breeds that will be affected—it will be the wider flock. Rather than go into more detail, I simply add my support to the comments she made.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I also support the noble Countess. The amendment is not asking for a lot; it none the less highlights the need to consider the phenotype characteristics of sheep before a restriction notice is applied.
	There are certain characteristics in many breeds throughout the United Kingdom which can be described as unique. A phenotype is there as a result, very often, of the environmental situation in which those sheep are found. It is particularly important that that is taken into account. We are very happy to support the noble Countess.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it may be sensible for me to draw attention to my Amendment No. 51, which is designed to allay some of the fears in this area. We have to recognise that the scrapie plan in principle and to a large extent in detail is being developed with the industry and is supported by the industry. That includes some consultation with the rare breed survival trusts. I realise that, in spite of that, there have been anxieties about the potential breeding out of particular rare breeds and other vulnerable breeds. My amendment is intended to cover really the circumstances described in this amendment, not specifically by reference to the way the amendment is phrased but to ensure that before taking decisions which might in any sense endanger the survival of a breed, all such factors have to be taken into account and survival safeguarded.
	In practice, the general indication on the genotyping indicates that most breeds are susceptible to being improved within the breed because all breeds have some degree of TSE-resistant strain. The danger can be exaggerated. Nevertheless, it is something that we need to take care of and about which large numbers of people in this House have expressed anxieties during the course of this Bill.
	I believe that my Amendment No. 51 deals with the situation and takes into account at least the principle of what the noble Countess is seeking here and indeed what the next amendment is seeking. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Countess will not pursue the amendment.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Unfortunately, he does not quite understand what I am getting at. I described to him the problems that have arisen with the Holstein cattle, with breeding from a few bulls. What we are going to get with sheep is breeding from a few rams. It may well be that we will be breeding into sheep a susceptibility to foot rot, for example, or some other disease—maybe swayback in lambs or something like that. We do not know what the genetic propensity of these diseases is: we do know that foot rot has a genetic component to it.
	I am grateful to the Minister for accepting that rare breeds may be bred out, but I am not talking about breeding out. I am talking about the quality of the sheep that are left. I am not happy with the noble Lord's response and I would like to test the feelings of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 116.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Greaves: moved Amendment No. 49:
	Page 14, line 3, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State in exercising his powers under this section shall pay due regard to the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity."

Lord Greaves: My Lords, this amendment is the same as one that we moved in Committee, when we had a long and fascinating discussion about sheep, biodiversity and genotypes, and so on, in connection with scrapie. Then, I understood that the Minister said that during the summer he would consider what he might be able to bring back to us. He has not brought anything back in relation to this specific issue. Therefore, I have tabled the amendment again in order to ask him what he considered during the summer and why he has not returned to us on the matter. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the reason that I did not bring back the issue in the specific sense of this amendment is that, first, new Section 36C(2) already obliges Ministers to consider the "exceptional circumstances" and whether any restrictions applied are made in accordance with the convention. Secondly, I was returning with a rather wider requirement relating to the survival not only of rare breeds but of any vulnerable breed. That is covered by Amendment No. 51, to which I referred a short while ago.
	At their most recent conference in 2000, the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed that it was important to recognise that there is potential to improve the management of various aspects of diversity through participatory breeding and selection strategies. Therefore, it is not as though the convention prevents or seriously constrains in that respect; only if circumstances might threaten biodiversity in a direct way or threaten the survival of particular species would this come into play. But, in any case, those would be the exceptional circumstances under the Bill as it stands, and that will be augmented if the House accepts my Amendment No. 51. Therefore, I did not consider it necessary to bring forward a specific amendment.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that elucidation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Countess of Mar: moved Amendment No. 50:
	Page 14, line 5, at end insert ", including whether or not the sheep are kept for commercial purposes"

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this amendment, which could perhaps be known as the "pet sheep" amendment. I wonder whether the Minister remembers the Committee stage debate on the matter when I pointed out to him that not all sheep were kept for commercial breeding purposes. I reminded him that some people kept pet lambs that grew up in the garden, never went anywhere, and were not going to be eaten when they died. Has the Minister reconsidered whether such sheep that are not kept for "commercial purposes" can be saved? I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the provision outlined in the amendment could be taken into account if there were exceptional circumstances where the pets were unlikely to hamper the general breeding process; in other words, they were unlikely or certain not to engage in the breeding process. In that case, there would be no reason for any culling, or otherwise, of the sheep. However, if they were potentially engaged in breeding purposes, if I may express it that way, sheep subject to breeding restrictions but kept as pets could be sterilised or castrated and still kept as pets in line with the general approach to the breeding out of TSE susceptible strains.
	I can say that such considerations would be taken into account. There would be some circumstances in which Ministers would not pursue the elimination of pets, or adopt other measures, to restrict breeding. However, as a general requirement, I do not believe it is sensible to insert such a provision into the Bill.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I just wanted to hear him say those words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 51:
	Page 14, line 31, at end insert—
	"(10) For the purposes of subsection (2) exceptional circumstances include circumstances in which the imposition in relation to the sheep of the restrictions and requirements of subsections (7) to (9) is likely to cause the extinction of the breed of which the sheep is a member."

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have trailed this amendment during the past 20 minutes. It relates to the concerns that were expressed in this Chamber right from the early stages of the Bill. We considered most carefully how we could address those concerns to safeguard the future of rare and other vulnerable breeds.
	The amendment would specifically require the Secretary of State to consider whether imposing breeding restrictions on a genetically susceptible sheep would be likely to affect the survival of its breed. This would be done as part of the consideration of the "exceptional circumstances" for not imposing a restriction on the sheep. If, when we activate the provisions of the Bill, we find that there are breeds whose survival would be likely to be affected by breeding restrictions—that could apply to rare breeds, or other breeds; for example, breeds with low numbers of animals of acceptable genotypes—we would exempt sheep of that breed from those breeding restrictions. The amendment would cover the rare breeds, but also other vulnerable breeds. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 51, Amendment No. 51ZA:
	Line 5, leave out from "cause" to end of line 6 and insert "the number of breeding ewes and active rams to fall below that required to continue the breed"

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining his amendment. We do not disagree with his amendment, because we are obviously grateful for the fact that he has come forward with this proposal. However, as we said earlier, we need to seek greater clarification. Amendment No. 51ZA seeks to achieve that aim.
	Our amendment is designed to ensure that there is some sort of limit put on the level of slaughter. There are many fascinating wildlife programmes on Radio 4, some of which are concerned with breeding programmes to reinstate a particular population, some with the elimination of certain creatures to allow the survival of others, and some with simply taking steps to allow a species to expand to healthier numbers. For example, I was surprised to learn that 30 breeding pairs of a bird of prey are insufficient to ensure their survival from one year to the next, let alone over a period of time.
	Survival rates depend on the breed, its natural predators, its location, and a number of other factors that vary from place to place and from time to time. Accordingly, we have not set finite limits but have tried to find words to indicate quite clearly that there will be such numbers and that they should be observed.
	As yet, scrapie and genomes is far from being an exact science; nor is it exclusive. It is quite possible that a breed that is highly vulnerable to scrapie may also comprise factors that make it very valuable from other points of view—a matter that we discussed earlier. I believe I said that it would be "stupid" to remove it from the face of the earth for a single failing, particularly one that may be totally harmless to man or to other creatures.
	I have been contacted by people within the rare breeds sector. Perhaps I may mention some of the information that I have received. To be listed as a "rare breed", there must be no more than 5,000 in number. In the more unusual rare breeds, the total numbers are often very small indeed—perhaps just one tiny flock. So even a 10 per cent allocation would not be sustainable. How will the Minister define provision to ensure that there are adequate numbers to enable a species of rare breed to sustain itself and continue to live? At present, unless I have misread the Minister's amendment, there seems to be a general ethos behind it but nothing specific in the wording.
	Amendment No. 51ZA is a probing amendment designed to find out whether 5 per cent or 10 per cent would be an acceptable level. How do the Government envisage deciding when that degree of sustainability has been reached? The Minister may respond by saying that that need not be specified, but people who have rare breeds are most concerned about the position. Therefore, some guidance in that respect would be immensely helpful.
	Amendments No. 51B and 59 have also been included in this grouping. New Section 36D(7) to the 1981 Act says:
	"The Secretary of State may"—
	I repeat the word "may"—make regulations. It then goes on in subsection (8) to provide that those regulations "may"—again, I emphasise the word "may"—cover,
	"the procedure to be followed on an appeal".
	We believe that the procedure to be followed on appeal must be laid down. Therefore, it follows that the provision should state that the Secretary of State "shall", rather than "may", make appropriate regulations.
	Similarly, when it comes to compensation, we believe that this cannot be left to chance. The right to compensation, the method of claiming compensation, and the assessment of entitlement to compensation and its payment, should all be open, simple to understand, and easy to implement. This calls for regulations.
	There can be no doubt that when we refer to scrapie we do not indicate a disease which has any indications to harm humans. We refer to a disease that certain humans feel just may possibly, if they can find the right ways of teasing it into behaving atypically, be persuaded to mimic BSE. But at the moment the science, as we have agreed before, is very much in doubt. In such circumstances, the Government have surely no option but to compensate farmers and breeders for losses suffered and costs incurred as a result of a legislated national scrapie plan.
	Amendment No. 60 relates to a draft order that has to be laid before Parliament and be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, in welcoming government Amendment No. 51, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 51ZA and 51A. Amendment No. 51A stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth.
	We particularly welcome the government amendment because it is a direct response to the concerns expressed and the discussion that took place in Committee. In Committee, we had a long and, I think, quite satisfactory debate on the subject. We covered the question not just of rare breeds but of the biodiversity within the sheep flock as a whole, within as well as between breeds. It is gratifying that the Government have responded in this way.
	I understand that the National Sheep Association welcomes the amendment and the commitments made by the Minister in Committee. I have had correspondence from the Rare Breeds Survival Trust which welcomes those commitments. I am sure that this amendment strengthens them.
	Amendment No. 51A is similar to Amendment No. 51ZA, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. It probes what the Government mean by the phrase,
	"is likely to cause the extinction of the breed of which the sheep is a member".
	In many ways, the word "extinction" is the crucial word.
	An example that has been given several times during our debates on the Bill, because it is a very special breed, is the Herdwick. It is not a rare breed but a distinctive traditional breed. It plays an important part in the economy and the ecology of the Lake District. It would be possible to have a situation in which the Herdwicks were removed from the Fells but the breed was not extinct—it might be kept going in some kind of zoo. I understand that there is a flock of Herdwicks on the sand dunes at Southport. Under those circumstances, the breed would not be extinct, but it would be an extremely unsatisfactory situation. We seek further commitments from the Minister as to what,
	"extinction of the breed of which the sheep is a member",
	actually means.
	There is biological extinction in an absolute form. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, probes what the Government mean by that. How small would numbers have to be before the Government thought that the breed was at risk of biological extinction? There are commercial flocks such as the Herdwicks which, nevertheless—there are many other examples in other parts of the country and indeed in the Lake District—play an important role in the ecology of the area and in the biodiversity of the national sheep flock. So there is what might be called "biological" extinction.
	There is what might be called "ecological" extinction—removing the Herdwicks from the high fells in the Lake District. It would prove difficult to find other sheep to replace them on the highest of those mountains. If one sits on the top of Pillar in the middle of summer or indeed on New Year's Day among the snow and a sheep wanders up, there is a high chance that it will be a Herdwick. They are the only animals which thrive and survive on the highest peak fells.
	So ecological extinction—reduction of the size of the breed to a level which meant that it could not continue to fulfil its role in that ecological niche that it has—would be a disaster. It would certainly be a disaster for the landscape of the Lake District and many people would consider it to be a disaster in its own right.
	There is also what might be called commercial extinction. One can keep animals going in zoos, but they would no longer fulfil the role that they have in the commercial system of sheep farming in this country. The Minister will know that there is a great deal of concern about the future of flocks of sheep on the hills and fells and on the moors of this country; whether they have a future and what that future might be. There is concern about possible reform of the common agricultural policy, and so on. There is a feeling that not everyone understands the important role that those sheep flocks play within the sheep industry and within the breeding and movement patterns of the sheep industry.
	So the issue is more than just simple biological extinction and putting a few sheep in a zoo; it is more than reducing some of the main distinctive pedigree breeds to the status of rare breeds. This is an opportunity for the Minister to explain how, if the scrapie part of the Bill comes into effect, these matters will be dealt with. I very much look forward to his reply.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for Amendment No. 51. But I support the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in her Amendment No. 51ZA.
	We are concerned here about genetic vitality—hybrid vitality in the case where rams are used to breed into another breed of sheep. As to genetic vitality, if one has only a few rams with a similar gene pool, one will breed in weaknesses. We know that to be the case with human beings. One can see what happened to the aristocracy. That is why the Government are so keen to get rid of us: we are all thickies because we are so inbred. But that is besides the point. We need to avoid this. So we need to have a large enough flock in order to maintain the vitality of the sheep. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in her amendment.

Lord Carter: My Lords, on the question of breeding, I have been dying to point out that there is an old saying in farming that 90 per cent of the breeding goes in at the mouth; that nurture is much more important than nature. In other words, the environment is much more important than breeding. But that is by the way.
	When the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, moved her amendment and spoke to the group, she did not mention Amendments Nos. 51C and 51D, but mentioned Amendment No. 60. Those amendments concern replacing the negative procedure with the affirmative procedure. Perhaps I may repeat a point that I made in Committee. We have tried extremely hard to emphasise the importance of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House. As Chief Whip, I used to brief very heavily to all departments that they had to produce an extremely good memorandum to that committee and that they needed a very good reason not to accept its views on the appropriate nature of the regulations, be they affirmative or negative.
	The committee has looked at the schedule. The committee states:
	"We agree that negative procedure would be appropriate".
	If we are to ask departments to take account of the committee's view, we as a House should also do so. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I have not taken an active part in debate on the Bill, but I have listened carefully to the debate on this group of amendments. Amendment No. 51A, in particular, moved from the Liberal Democrat Benches, would provide a valuable and desirable reinforcement of the Government's commendable amendment, Amendment No. 51.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand the question of what "extinction" means and whether there is a better phrase for it, raised by the noble Lord, Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. First, the whole scrapie plan will be conducted in conjunction with the industry, including the pedigree societies, the rare breeds trusts and so on. We shall therefore be careful at every stage about the effect of what we do on the long-term viability of particular breeds, as well as on the flock as a whole, in minimising and, eventually, eliminating TSE susceptibility.
	Clearly, other issues are at stake than bald extinction, but I am not sure that the wording of either Amendment No. 51ZA or Amendment No. 51A is any better than referring to "extinction". The wording in Amendment No. 51ZA—
	"the number of breeding ewes and active rams to fall below that required to continue the breed"—
	clearly covers a central aspect of potential for extinction, but it is not the only one. Other factors, such as where the animals are, for what they are being used, and so on, need to be brought to bear in assessing the probability of extinction. The amendment limits rather than extends the provision.
	Amendment No. 51A is slightly better in that respect, in that it refers to "sustainability", although again it is not entirely clear what that means. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, says that he does not want breeds to exist only in zoos. I concur with that, as would the breed societies, although it would be better for them to survive in zoos than not at all. However, that should not be the outcome of the programme. On future sustainability such as the noble Lord described in the case of the Herdwicks, there is no way that the scrapie programme can of itself define where sheep will be deployed in the longer term as various commercial and geographical changes take place.
	The aim is not to preserve the flock as it is; it is to preserve a sustainable minimum of the flock to avoid the chance of its extinction. I would expect the ministry—and certainly the societies—to take a precautionary view on what is the danger point and when we approach it. I therefore accept some of the points that have been made, but the amendments do not make the issue clearer. The real guarantee is that the Government will not act except in conjunction with the relevant societies.
	On Amendments No. 51B and 59, the purpose of this part of the Bill is to facilitate the making of further regulations—some of which may well relate to an appeal procedure—but there is no requirement on us to make such regulations. The word "shall", inserted by the amendments, would require detailed provision along the lines of the subsequent clause, which would be unnecessary if the powers, and therefore the safeguards, are not needed. So the word "may" is better than "shall" in that context.
	On Amendments Nos. 51C, 51D and 60, which relate to substituting affirmative for negative powers, my noble friend Lord Carter made the point that we must agree with the opinion of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. So, although I have sympathy with what was said in the debate, especially about the first set of amendments, I hope that the amendments will not be pursued.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments and his promise to try to work as well as he can to preserve those breeds. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 51ZA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 51, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 51A to 51D, as amendments to Amendment No. 51, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 51 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 17, leave out lines 1 to 10 and insert—
	"(3) The second condition is that each of the following applies to the occupier of the premises—
	(a) he has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and of the reasons for that decision;
	(b) he has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by a person mentioned in section 36G(1);
	(c) he has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant.
	(4) The third condition is that—
	(a) the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent and (in either case) notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or
	(b) an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant would defeat the object of entering the premises."
	[Amendments Nos. 53A to 53C, as amendments to Amendment No. 53, not moved.]

Lord Plumb: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 53, Amendment No. 53D:
	Line 12, after "absent" insert ", and has been uncontactable for 14 days"

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I shall not delay your Lordships for too long. This amendment also concerns scrapie. The best thing that I have heard from the Minister is what he said a few moments ago about scrapie—although it will apply to other matters as well—when he said that full consultation with sheep breeders, and so on, with particular reference to rare breeds, is important to him. That is indeed music to our ears. The scrapie programme is different from that for other diseases—certainly that for foot and mouth disease. It concerns an illness that has been present for hundreds of years, often without apparent ill effect. It builds on research that has so far been unable to prove a link with BSE. We are aware that many flockmasters are responding well to the scrapie eradication scheme. It may have its faults, but I hope that it has a great future.
	The amendment is intended to ensure that the normal courtesies are extended unless there is an urgent situation in future. It is not necessary that the scrapie programme be carried out at the same level of pressure as the control of an infectious disease epidemic. It is unnecessary to demand instant access to farms, flocks and records. That is why the amendment would insert the words:
	"and has been uncontactable for 14 days".
	I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I support the amendment. I said earlier that it would have been better to have had a separate scrapie Bill, but lack of legislative time has clearly prevented that and the scrapie provisions are contained in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, scrapie, not being an infectious disease, provides the opportunity to take a little more time to deal with the situation. It is perfectly reasonable to insert the condition that,
	"the premises are unoccupied"
	or that,
	"the occupier has been uncontactable for 14 days",
	because the urgency is nothing like that in the case of foot and mouth disease, where immediate action must be taken.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that the situation is not the same as it would be with disease control in normal circumstances and that, therefore, the number of occasions on which the powers—all the powers of entry—would be needed in the context of the breeding programme would be limited indeed. However, one could envisage a situation in which action might be needed rapidly. Without wishing to provoke the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I must say that it is just possible that a case of BSE or some other disease that is not infectious or listed at Schedule 2A but which requires rapid action might emerge in sheep. That is the extreme example.
	The more practical example might occur if we were engaged in a programme in a particular area in which the owner of one flock or occupier of one farm was not contactable for up to 14 days and we had to move on to another area. We could regard that as an administrative inconvenience but, on the other hand, it would mean a substantial change in the priorities of the programme. Fourteen days is a bit long to allow an occupier or owner to disappear off the face of the Earth. Indeed, if sheep have been left alone for 14 days, without anybody claiming to be in charge of them, some other questions would be asked.
	Had the noble Lord suggested 48 hours, I would have been in more difficulty, but 14 days is a little long.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, are not sheep farmers entitled to go on holidays? They might be in Madeira or the Bahamas—not on the current income from sheep, perhaps. They might be away for 14 days, and somebody else might be caring for their sheep. Is it not reasonable to allow 14 days?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in that case, somebody is designated as being in charge of the animals—a neighbour, a relative or whoever. Somebody could speak for the occupier in those circumstances. It is unlikely that nobody would be able to speak for a flock of sheep for 14 days, so we must ensure that we have the power to act within that period.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the Minister, but I am a bit disappointed by his response. Obviously, people may be away. The Minister made the point earlier that the carer for the animals must notify that he is the person responsible. If he goes away, he must nominate someone who is responsible. However, it is a matter of concern, and we may raise it again at Third Reading. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 53D, as an amendment to Amendment No. 53, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 53E, as an amendment to Amendment No. 53, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 53 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 55:
	Page 17, line 12, at end insert—
	"(6) A warrant issued under this section must be executed only at a reasonable hour unless the person authorised by the warrant to enter the premises thinks that the case is one of urgency.
	(7) In relation to any premises to which entry is obtained by virtue of a warrant under this section the Secretary of State must retain for a period of not less than 12 months beginning with the day after entry—
	(a) a copy of the warrant;
	(b) a copy of any record of the steps taken to effect entry to the premises and the actions taken on the premises by the person authorised by the warrant to enter the premises and any other person entering the premises with him."

Lord Whitty: My Lords, like Amendment No. 53, this amendment reflects earlier discussions on the warrant procedure for other parts of the Bill. It makes the way in which we deal with warrant procedures more transparent, more reasonable and more proportionate. It is virtually the same as exists in other parts of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 55, Amendment No. 55A:
	Line 4, leave out "thinks" and insert "has reasonable grounds to believe"

Lord Greaves: My Lords, it is fitting that Amendment No. 55A should be the last amendment to be moved during this long Report stage. Amendment No. 55 says "thinks", and we would like it to say,
	"has reasonable grounds to believe".
	I shall say no more about that; we have discussed the word "thinks" long enough during the passage of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 55 and Amendment No. 53, which has been approved, are welcome as amendments that tidy up and clarify the area of entry and use of warrants in relation to scrapie. We have had long discussions about that on Report and in Committee, mainly with reference to foot and mouth and similar diseases rather than scrapie. I suspect that we will want to come back to those issues on Third Reading. We may want to come back on scrapie, as well as on the earlier parts of the Bill.
	This evening, we give a limited welcome to the Minister's amendment. It clarifies things and provides for a slightly less draconian regime in some important respects. It would be churlish not to welcome it. Having said that, I can say only one word: "thinks". I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. More importantly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for coming so far in our direction and softening the brutality initially apparent in these parts of the Bill. I am sure that many people will be grateful to him.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess and the noble Lord for their words. We have moved some way towards a better understanding of the intention of the Bill. I hope that some concerns have been allayed, although I accept that not all have.
	I have only one argument about retaining the word "thinks", and that is that it appears in other warrant procedures. Noble Lords may not think—they may have reasonable doubts—that that is an adequate argument, but it is at least consistent. Therefore, I must resist the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, and I am glad that he continues to think. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 55A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 55, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Amendment No. 55 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]

Lord Plumb: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Page 17, line 33, leave out "seize and detain" and insert "copy"

Lord Plumb: My Lords, the words "seize and detain" are unfortunate words to put in a Bill. I hope that they will be reconsidered.
	It is a matter of concern. It is inappropriate for anyone to seize and detain a farmer's records. If they are on paper, they can be photocopied; if they are on computer, they can be copied to a floppy disk or printed out. These days, farmers use computers, even though they cannot afford to go on holiday, as we said earlier. Nevertheless, the equipment is there because it is necessary to help them fill in the many forms that they must fill in about movement or keeping stock at all. I hope that, by making this small amendment, the Minister will take out those horrible words and insert "copy" instead. I beg to move.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, this is a helpful amendment. Many farmers have problems dealing not only with their normal accounts but with the added discipline of the VAT element. Farmers greatly depend on their cash flow to ensure that their quarterly VAT refunds are paid regularly. With the present state of farming, farmers have problems by being forced endlessly to lend money to government in the event of their records being seized and detained. Many farmers would find it difficult to submit proper VAT statements and returns if their records had been seized and detained. "Detained" means that they would not have access to them.
	I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in that regard. I can foresee farmers being put to serious disadvantage if they cannot gain access to their records because they have been seized by an authorised person, whoever he might be. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment—and I hope that he can—I hope that between now and next week he will give careful thought to the position in which farmers may find themselves with regard to this provision in the Bill.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Perhaps the Minister remembers that MAFF requested detailed records of animal transactions from Longtown market. Not only did it lose them once, but three times. DEFRA officials may take away the records of an ordinary farmer but he will not have kept them in duplicate or triplicate, as did Longtown market and he will be sunk without them. This is a reasonable amendment and I see no reason why the details should not be copied instead of taken away.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I add my support to the amendment. I can understand how "seize and detain" came about because the movement records and ear numbers of the stock are most important in tracking the movement of animals. None the less, I believe that there ought to be a formal way of doing that by copying the records. Many farmers have account packages on their computers and copies are easily obtainable. If there needs to be a verification process that they are genuine, a stamp from DEFRA on the document proving that it is an accurate replication of the original record should be sufficient.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in some ways I wish I could accept the amendment because, in this context as in others, we are bedevilled by the fact that the courts require original documentation. In one sense, the reason is obvious but it is of considerable inconvenience to many people across the board.
	The only occasion when the powers would be exerted—it would be rare under this part of the Bill but less rare under the disease control part—would be with a view to court proceedings. If they required the enforcers to produce original documents, the Bill must provide for their potential removal. That is the case in a number of court procedures. Were the legal profession and the courts generally to accept copies, we would not be in this difficulty. However, we are in this difficulty and will be for the foreseeable future, so I cannot accept the amendment despite the reasonableness of the way in which it was moved.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. My conscience will allow me to sleep a little easier tonight because he said that in some ways he would have liked to accept one of my amendments. That was most encouraging, but it is not quite good enough. Although I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I shall bring it back again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 58:
	Page 17, line 37, at end insert—
	"(7) If an authorised person enters any premises by virtue of a warrant issued under section 36H he must at the time of entry—
	(a) serve a copy of the warrant on the occupier of the premises, or (if the occupier is not on the premises)
	(b) leave a copy of the warrant in a conspicuous place on the premises."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 not moved.]
	House adjourned at six minutes past eight o'clock.